Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Puck v. Werk

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 2, 2017

HARDY K. AH PUCK JR., #A0723792, Plaintiff,
v.
KENTON S. WERK, CRAIG HIRAYASU, PETER T. CAHILL, Defendants,

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) & 1915A(B)

          Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge

         Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Hardy K. Ah Puck's prisoner civil rights Complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Maui County Deputy Prosecutor Kenton S. Werk, Probation Officer Craig Hirayasu, and Hawaii Second Circuit Court (“circuit court”) Judge Peter T. Cahill violated his civil rights in connection with the revocation of his probation. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) with leave granted to amend.

         I. SCREENING

         Federal courts must screen all cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, or seek to proceed without prepayment of the civil filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(2) and 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss those claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at §§ 1915(b)(2) and 1915A(b).

         A complaint 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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Pro se prisoners' pleadings must be liberally construed and given the benefit of any doubt. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). A plaintiff must identify specific facts supporting the existence of substantively plausible claims for relief. Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the plaintiff can correct the complaint's defects. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Maui Community Correctional Center (“MCCC”). Plaintiff apparently challenges Judge Cahill's, Deputy Prosecutor Werk's, and Probation Officer Hirayasu's actions taken during his criminal proceedings to revoke his probation and his later challenges to that revocation. Plaintiff complains that Hirayasu reported his failure to report to the probation office, and Werk then authorized an arrest warrant. Presumably, Judge Cahill issued an order revoking probation, although Plaintiff is not specific on this point.

         Plaintiff broadly claims that Werk prosecuted him twice for the same offense in violation of the Fifth Amendment by participating in the revocation proceedings. He also alleges Defendants discriminated against him, but sets forth no facts in support of this claim. Finally, Plaintiff complains that the circuit court, perhaps Judge Cahill, denied or dismissed eight petitions he recently filed in the circuit court. He seeks compensatory damages.

         III. DISCUSSION

         “To 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.

         Additionally, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of a particular defendant's conduct and an affirmative link between the injury and the violation of his rights. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). “A person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

         A. Rule 8

         Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). Although Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to identify the statutory or constitutional source of a claim, he nevertheless must “give ‘fair notice' of the claim and its basis.” Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 736-37 (9th Cir. 2004). If the factual elements of a claim are not organized into a short and plain statement, dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 is proper. See McHenry v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.