United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ACTION
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) &
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge
the court is pro se Plaintiff Rocky Hermanns-Raymond's
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff names the
Maui Community Correctional Center (MCCC), and unidentified
MCCC prison officials John and Jane Does 1-6 in their
individual capacities, as Defendants.
following reasons, the FAC is DISMISSED for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) &
1915A(b). Because Plaintiff was given leave to correct the
deficiencies in his claims and is unable to do so, this
dismissal is with prejudice.
commenced this action on September 12, 2016. Compl., ECF No.
1. On October 14, 2016, the court dismissed Plaintiff's
Complaint and supplement for Plaintiff's failure to state
a claim, with leave granted to amend. Order, ECF No. 10. The
court determined that the Eleventh Amendment barred
Plaintiff's claims against the State of Hawaii, and the
Director of the Department of Public Safety and MCCC Warden
in their official capacities. The court further found that
Plaintiff's facts were insufficient to state a claim
under the Eighth Amendment for his allegations of (1)
overcrowding, and (2) delay of medical care when he was
incarcerated at MCCC.
FAC, Plaintiff alleges that between March and October 2015,
he was housed with three other inmates in a two-man cell at
MCCC. Plaintiff says that he and his cellmates were confined
in their cell “for up to 10 hours, ” and
sometimes longer. ECF 14, PageID #62. Plaintiff states that
on one occasion he tripped over a mattress on the cell's
floor, fell, cut his eye, and required medical care.
Plaintiff acknowledges that the mattress was “open and
obvious, ” but alleges that Defendants are liable for
this “foreseeable” obstacle that caused his fall.
Id., PageID #62-63.
provides no details identifying Defendants John and Jane Does
1-6, although he suggests they are MCCC officials with
responsibility for making inmate housing assignments.
Plaintiff concludes that Defendants, by housing him in a
two-inmate cell with three other inmates, violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks damages only.
court must screen all civil actions brought by prisoners
challenging prison conditions or seeking redress from a
governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Complaints or claims that are frivolous, malicious,
fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek
relief from a defendant who is immune from suit must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (c)(1).
complaint that lacks a cognizable legal theory or alleges
insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory fails to
state a claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A pleading
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This does not demand detailed factual
allegations, but requires “more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Id. That is, “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.
to amend should be granted if it appears the plaintiff can
correct the defects in the complaint. Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate when it is
clear that amendment is futile. Sylvia Landfield Trust v.
City of L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show
‘(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a
person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the
conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or
statutory right.'” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500
F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), vacated
and remanded on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1256 (2009);
see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
1983 also requires a connection between a defendant's
actions and a plaintiff's allegations. See Monell v.
Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo
v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person
‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if
he does an affirmative act, participates in another's
affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is