Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flores v. Turtle Bay Resort

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

October 20, 2016

XAVIER FLORES, Plaintiff,
v.
TURTLE BAY RESORT, MIKE LAIE - SECURITY, ALEX - GOLF MANAGER, ASHLEY - CLUB HOUSE REP, TRAVIS JOERGER -DIRECTOR, STACY - CLUBHOUSE MANAGER, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; RESERVING RULING ON THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS; AND DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

         On October 17, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Xavier Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed, inter alia, his Complaint and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). [Dkt. nos. 1, 2.] The Court has considered these matters without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i (“Local Rules”). After careful consideration of the Complaint and the relevant legal authority, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE - in other words, Plaintiff has LEAVE TO FILE an amended complaint. The Court will RESERVE RULING on the Application until Plaintiff files an amended complaint. All of Plaintiff's other pending motions are HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.

         BACKGROUND

         The Complaint concerns events that took place at the Turtle Bay Resort in Kahuku, Hawai`i (“Turtle Bay”) on September 22, 2016. Plaintiff states that he went to Turtle Bay “to use the golf range, [make] use of the showers, and make a few local phone calls.” [Complaint at pg. 3.] Plaintiff states that a Turtle Bay staff member approached him with some concerns about Plaintiff's interactions with a female Turtle Bay staff member. Plaintiff admits that he was attracted to the female staff member and that he was trying to get to know her. According to Plaintiff, there was also concern among the Turtle Bay staff about him going through a drawer “behind the counter, ” which Plaintiff says was because he was charging his phone. [Id. at pg. 4.] Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff went into the locker room where he “began to shave [his] head, ” at which time a security guard asked to speak with him. [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff states that he was given permission to finish shaving and to take a shower. Upon exiting the locker room, the security guard informed Plaintiff that he needed to leave the property. Plaintiff states that he requested that the security guard contact the police. While waiting for the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) to arrive, the security guard took a picture of Plaintiff. [Id. at 6-7.]

         When HPD arrived, Plaintiff was issued a “trespass notice.” [Id. at pg. 7.] Plaintiff asserts that he informed HPD and Turtle Bay staff that “the bus run[s] thru [sic] the property and that I would be left with no choice but to enter the property.”[1] [Id.] Plaintiff states that “[t]he guard said I cannot enter the property at all.” [Id.]

         Plaintiff informs the Court that, inter alia: he deals with a number of issues related to national security; he is under constant surveillance by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States National Security Agency; recently, many people have tried to steal his work, including the United States Secret Service; and “[p]art of [his] work is to rewrite a new agreement between the Native American - Hawaiian, the U.S. government and [him]self.” [Id. at pgs. 7-8.]

         Finally, Plaintiff argues that this experience violated his rights and tarnished his reputation, and he seeks fifteen millions dollar, “[a] letter of apology from each defendant and most importantly - investigation of each defendant.” [Id. at pg. 9.]

         STANDARD

Courts may authorize the commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that the person is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to Section 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any claim that it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to dismiss a § 1915(a) complaint that fails to state a claim); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners).
The Court may also dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 8 requires that a complaint include “a short plain statement of the claim” and that each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1).

Cataluna v. Vanderford, Civ. No. 14-00480 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 6490466, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Nov. 18, 2014). As the United States Supreme Court has explained:

[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations, ” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. [Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544], at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 [(2007)] (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id., at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (some alterations in Iqbal).

         Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court must liberally construe his pleadings. See, e.g., Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the inartful pleading of pro se litigants.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.