United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ROLAND I. KEHANO, SR., Petitioner,
SCOTT HARRINGTON, et al., Respondent.
DISMISSAL ORDER AND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
the court is pro se Petitioner Roland Kehano's most
recent pleading. It is unclear whether this document is
intended as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, or as a civil rights complaint brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In either case, the
document makes little sense. Kehano has neither paid the
civil filing fee for commencing an action nor submitted an in
forma pauperis application.
following reasons, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
but without leave granted to amend.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
refers to himself as “Applicant-Petitioner, ”
names his warden as Respondent, and asks “[t]he Court
to entertain this Complaint of Habeas Corpus.” ECF No.
1, PageID #2. He discusses a previous “Second or
Successive habeas Corpus” petition, apparently arguing
that it was dismissed because he had acquired “4
strikes, ” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Id. He refers to jury instructions and an
“offense of Second-degree Murder to First-Degree
Murder, ” although it is unclear whether he is speaking
of his own trial. Id. at PageID #3. He mentions
minimum term hearings held before the Hawaii Paroling
Authority (HPA) in 1997 and 1998, says these hearings
deprived him of due process and violated double jeopardy
(without any statement of facts to support this claim), and
says the HPA set his mandatory minimum term at fifteen years.
These random statements support a finding that Kehano seeks
habeas relief in this action.
extent Kehano is challenging his present conviction and
sentence, however, this action must be dismissed without
prejudice as second or successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(a). Kehano has previously brought a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he
challenged his present conviction and sentence. See
Kehano v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Civ. No. 04-00376 HG, ECF
No. 37 (D. Haw. June 20, 2004). That petition was not
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as he vaguely
alleges, however, but as time-barred. The district and
appellate courts denied certificates of appealability.
Id; App. Ord, ECF No. 40 (July 26, 2005).
has since filed several additional federal habeas petitions
and motions to file second or successive petitions. See,
e.g, Kehano v. Harrington, Civ. No.
1:16-cv-00589 LEK (D. Haw. 2016) (referred to Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals); Kehano v. Sequeira, Civ. No.
1:16-cv-00006 JMS (D. Haw. 2016) (same); Kehano v.
Espinda, Civ. No. 1:12-cv-00526 JMS (D. Haw. 2012)
(transferred to Ninth Circuit); Kehano v. Raffetto,
Civ. No. 1:09-cv-00379 (D. Haw. 2009) (transferred to Ninth
Circuit); Kehano v. Dep't of Public
Safety, Civ. No. 1:05-cv-00339 (D. Haw. 2005)
(dismissing petition and referring to Ninth Circuit). The
court lacks jurisdiction to consider Kehano's Petition
without authorization from the Ninth Circuit. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Rishor v. Ferguson, 822
F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding failure to obtain
appellate authorization for successive petition is
also calls his pleading a “Complaint, ” and
challenges a recent decision in State of Hawaii v.
Trump, Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00050 DKW (D. Haw. 2017)
(enjoining presidential executive order). Kehano discusses
his military service in Vietnam and complains that Muslim
immigrants will be allowed to settle in Hawaii if the Hawaii
Attorney General is successful in Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00050.
prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal a civil
judgment if he has:
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated . . .,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless [he] is under imminent danger of serious
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
extent Kehano intends this document as a civil complaint, he
may not proceed without concurrent payment of the civil
filing fee because he has accrued three strikes pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Kehano v. Espinda,
Civ. No. 1:12-cv-00529 JMS (D. Haw. 2012) (dismissed for
failure to state a claim); Kehano v. Pioneer Mill
Co., Civ. No. 1:12-cv-448 (D. Haw. 2012) (same);
Kehano v. Hawaii, Civ. No. 2:05-cv-02475 (D. Ariz.
2005) (same); Kehano v. Hawaii, 2:04-cv-00935 (D.
Ariz. 2004) (same). Kehano has been notified of his strikes,
indeed, he refers to them in his pleading.
allegations regarding immigration irregularities in Hawaii,
and challenges to the injunction filed in Civ. No.
1:17-cv-00050 are frivolous and do not show that he was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury when he commenced