United States District Court, D. Hawaii
HARDY K. AH PUCK JR., #A0723792, Plaintiff,
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
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.
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).
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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).
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.