United States District Court, D. Hawaii
GRANTING (1) GOVERNOR DAVID IGE AND FIRST LADY DAWN IGE'S
MOTION TO DISMISS; (2) SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO AND SENATOR BRIAN
SCHATZ'S MOTION TO DISMISS; (3) THE HONORABLE TULSI
GABBARD'S MOTION TO DISMISS; (4) LINDA KWOK KAI YUN
SCHATZ'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (5) HAWAII POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
DERRICK K. WATSON, United States District
Rodney-Emile Piedvache was arrested in Hilo, Hawai‘i
for failure to comply with drivers' licensing and motor
vehicle registration requirements and faces ongoing
prosecution in state court on the charges stemming from that
arrest. Piedvache contends that he is exempt from
governmental statutes and regulations that require motor
vehicle operators to comply with licensing and registration
requirements on public roadways. On March 24, 2016,
Piedvache, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against the
Governor of the State of Hawaii and his wife; members of the
Hawaii congressional delegation and their spouses; the County
of Hawaii Police Department and individual officers involved
in his arrest; and the Hawaii Tribune Herald newspaper,
alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, copyright law,
and criminal law. Because the Complaint fails to state a
claim for relief or to provide a valid basis for the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS
defendants' motions to dismiss. Piedvache is GRANTED limited
leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with the
terms of this order by no later than November 28, 2016.
to Piedvache's Complaint:
On or about January 2, 2016 at approximately 9:00 am, while
plaintiff was traveling in his truck on a public roadway in
Hilo, Plaintiff was arrested and ordered to obtain a drivers
license and an automobile license, etc. I stand on what the
Supreme Court says when they speak these words, “The
right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage,
wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may
be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right
which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may,
therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination
along the public highways or in public places, and while
conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither
interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will
be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe
* * * *
These events occurred in Hilo, Hawaii near the outdoor market
on a Saturday morning while there were lots of people
shopping there. These things were done in a public place
where there were witnesses and a video taken and posted on
[YouTube] of the arrest.
Complaint at 4-5.
his arrest, the Hawaii Tribune Herald “wrote a piece in
their newspaper about [Piedvache] due to the police report
without [his] express written consent.” Complaint at 5.
Piedvache alleges, “I notified the police officers
about my copyright and tried to show it to them. They refused
to acknowledge it and laughed at me.” Complaint at 5.
The Defendants in this case has deprived the Plaintiff of his
constitutional rights under the color of law, custom or
usage, conspiracy to so deprive and/or failure, neglect or
refusal to protect plaintiff from said conspiracy when it was
in their power to do so. They were also in violation of
breaking the copyright laws of this country as I have a
copyright on my name which they had no right to use without
my express, written consent.
Complaint at 4.
what the Court can discern, Piedvache named Governor Ige,
Senator Schatz, Senator Hirono, and Congresswoman Gabbard as
defendants because they conspired with others to deprive him
of his constitutional rights and “failed to protect
[him] from said conspiracy although they have been notified
and [are] in a position to do so.” Complaint at 5.
seeks “one hundred billion one hundred forty two
million dollars ($100, 142, 000, 000) which we would like to
have in lawful U.S. Silver Dollars, ” in addition to
the following relief:
Plaintiff asks the court to order the Hawaii Police
Department to Cease and Desist to harass the plaintiff while
traveling on the public highways on the Big Island. They are
continuing at the present time to harass me with tickets and
continuous court hearings. I would also ask this court for an
order to have the venue changed from the State courts to this
court that this matter can be resolved. The ransom they
charged me for my release from their unlawful arrest was in
the amount of $1, 025.
Complaint at 6.
seek dismissal with prejudice of all claims colorably alleged
in the Complaint. In opposition to the motions, Piedvache
raises several issues not addressed in the Complaint relating
to his birth certificate, Social Security card, and the
conduct of County of Hawaii Police Officers and the Governor.
He also questions the authority and legitimacy of the State
of Hawaii and the United States of America.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a court to
dismiss claims over which it lacks proper subject matter
jurisdiction. A court may determine jurisdiction on a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) so long as “the
jurisdictional issue is [not] inextricable from the merits of
a case.” Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United
States, 541 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2008). A plaintiff
has the burden of proving that subject-matter jurisdiction in
fact exists. Thornhill Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel.
& Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979).
challenge to the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction may
be “facial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone
v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a
facial attack, the party challenging jurisdiction argues that
the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient
“on their face” to invoke federal jurisdiction.
Id. A facial challenge, therefore, mirrors a
traditional motion to dismiss analysis. The Court must take
all allegations contained in the pleading “to be true
and draw all reasonable inferences in [plaintiff's]
favor.” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362
(9th Cir. 2004).
Failure To State A Claim
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Pursuant to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “[t]o
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
555 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). “[T]he tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal
conclusions.” Id. Accordingly,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). Rather, “[a] claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Factual allegations that only permit the court to infer
“the mere possibility of misconduct” do not
constitute a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief as required by Rule
8(a)(2). Id. at 679.
12(b)(6) dismissal is proper when there is either a
“‘lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged.'” UMGRecordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC,
718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri