United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER PROVISIONALLY GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION AND DIRECTING SERVICE
MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is pro se Plaintiff Thad Thompson's prisoner
civil rights Complaint and in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) application. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Thompson
names the City and County of Honolulu, the Halawa
Correctional Facility (“HCF”), and HCF
correctional officers (“CO”) Sergeant Henry Hope
and Brandon Smith as Defendants. He alleges Defendants
violated his rights to access the court and redress his
grievances; he seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
following reasons, Thompson's IFP application is
provisionally GRANTED, subject to prison officials filing a
certified account statement showing that Thompson is
indigent. HCF and the City and County of Honolulu are
is DIRECTED to effect service on Defendants Henry Hope and
Brandon Smith by mailing a copy of the Complaint and
completed service documents to the United States Marshal.
After service is effected, Hope and Smith SHALL file a
response to Thompson's Complaint.
court must screen all prisoner civil actions 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, or seek relief from an
immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c)(1). During screening, the court sets conclusory
factual allegations aside, accepts non-conclusory factual
allegations as true, and determines whether these allegations
state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Plausibility does not mean “probability, ” but it
requires “more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678.
state a claim, 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). A 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). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
must construe pro se pleadings liberally “to afford the
petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations
omitted). The court “should not dismiss a pro se
complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is
absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could
not be cured by amendment.'” Akhtar v.
Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th
Cir. 1988) (per curiam)).
has another federal civil lawsuit pending before this Court.
See Thompson v. Afamasaga, Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00128
JMS/KSC (D. Haw. 2016). On November 22, 2016, Thompson was
moved to the HCF medium facility special housing unit
(“MSHU”). He immediately requested copies of the
forms he needed to attend the MSHU law library or to use its
legal kiosks and asked for his legal papers (which were
stored for the move to the MSHU) to stay abreast of his
pending suit. Thompson says that Smith told him that while he
is in pre-trial disciplinary segregation, or if he is later
found guilty and is sanctioned to disciplinary segregation,
he may not visit the law library, use legal kiosks, receive
mail, make and receive personal and legal phone calls, or
retain his legal documents. See generally, Compl.,
ECF No. 1; see also Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.,
ECF No. 3.
November 22 and December 29, 2016, Thompson says he submitted
“multiple written requests” to Sergeant Hope
requesting law library and kiosk scheduling forms, legal and
personal phone calls, mail delivery, and access to his legal
documents, always explaining that he had a pending federal
civil suit. ECF No. 1, PageId. #4. Thompson made
these same requests verbally to Smith. Hope and Smith
allegedly denied Thompson's requests. Thompson says he is
currently pursuing a grievance over these issues but Hope and
Smith's alleged denials of grievance forms have delayed
claims that Hope and Smith's actions violated his right
to access the court and caused him an “actual
injury” to Civ. No. 1:16-cv-00128. He seeks punitive
damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
alleges that he is indigent and cannot pay the civil filing
fee to commence this action. He says he is unable to provide
the court with a copy of his trust account statement and
prison certification of the amount in ...