United States District Court, D. Hawaii
LEONARDO R. CHAVEZ, #A6068476, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, USSOCOM, SOCCENT, SOCPAC, Defendants,
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE
GILLMOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Leonardo R. Chavez's Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF. No. 10. Chavez
alleges Defendants the United States, USSOCOM (U.S. Special
Operations Command), SOCCENT (Special Operations Command
Central), and SOCPAC (Special Operations Command Pacific)
violated military regulations and the Constitution during his
service in the United States Army. He seeks correction of his
military records. For the following reasons, the Court
directs the SAC be served and orders the United States to
respond after service is perfected.
is incarcerated at the Oahu Community Correctional Center
awaiting trial in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii, for Murder in the Second Degree and Carrying
or Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Separate
Felony. See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #8
(“facing murder in the 2nd”); State v.
Chavez, 1PC141000360 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct. 2014).
December 30, 2016, Chavez commenced this action. ECF No. 1.
February 17, 2017, Chavez filed an amended complaint. Am.
Compl., ECF No. 6. He alleged that the Secretary of Defense
and individual officers in the United States Army chain of
command violated the Constitution when they denied him
adequate rest between deployments, falsified his military
records and military policies, and stripped him of his
retirement. Chavez sought $1 billion in damages and the
correction of his military records.
March 9, 2017, the Court dismissed Chavez's Amended
Complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
Order, ECF No. 9 (“March 9, 2017 Dismissal
Second Amended Complaint
April 5, 2017, Chavez filed the SAC. ECF No. 10. He now
alleges Defendants violated Article I, Section 8 of the
United States Constitution and 10 U.S.C. § 991 when they
allegedly deployed him overseas in excess of § 991's
one and two year “high deployment”
thresholds without the explicit approval of the
Secretary of Defense or another delegated official having
been noted in his records. He alleges this failure, and his
resulting alleged over deployment, violated the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Chavez was discharged from the Army in
“Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” on May
19, 2016. See id., ECF 10 4 (Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty).
seeks an order directing USSOCOM and the Pentagon “to
produce the waiver request and the approval by the Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives” for his
“Operational Personnel Tempo.”SAC, ECF No. 10,
PageID #85. He has withdrawn his request for money damages.
Chavez states that he has “initiated”
congressional review of his discharge with the Army Review
Board Agency (ARBA), which is also known as the Army Board
for Correction of Military Records
Chavez is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
screens his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The Court must dismiss a complaint
or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 27 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2));
Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) involves the same
standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing
screening pursuant to § 1915A). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a
complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is