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.

Lagmay v. Nakakuni

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 12, 2017

HENRY LAGMAY, #AO191119, Plaintiff,
v.
MRS. F. NAKAKUNI; MRS. JAN; MR. D.K. WATSON; MRS. L.E. KOBAYASHI; MRS. S. BEITIA; MR. O'SCANNLAIN; MR. WATFORD; MR. PETER L. SHAW; MR. WALLACE; MR. LEAVY; MR. FISHER; MRS. M.C. DWYER; JEAN GREEN, Defendants,

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) & 1915A(a) WITH LEAVE GRANTED TO AMEND

          J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Henry Lagmay's prisoner civil rights Complaint. ECF No. 1. Lagmay claims that Defendants[1] violated his constitutional rights pursuant to decisions they made and actions they allegedly took during his civil proceedings in the District of Hawaii, and on appeal of those proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For the following reasons, Lagmay's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim, 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), 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. §§ 1915(b)(2), 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 Atl. 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. DISCUSSION

         Lagmay alleges violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) by federal employees and one private individual. The claims against federal actors potentially arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

         A. Background

         Lagmay's fifty-one page Complaint is difficult to comprehend, as it is replete with pronouncements of law and conclusory allegations, but very sparse on facts. Lagmay claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights to equal protection, substantive and procedural due process, and freedom from involuntary servitude and illegal search and seizure when they allegedly colluded and conspired to obstruct justice between December 14 and 22, 2016, during his civil proceedings in the District of Hawaii and on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These proceedings are briefly summarized below.

         1.Civil No. 1:15-cv-00166 DKW-RLP

         On May 6, 2015, Lagmay filed Lagmay v. Nobriga, et al., Civ. No. 1:15-cv-00166 DKW-RLP (D. Haw. 2015), alleging various constitutional violations against state prison employees. On May 15, 2015, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave granted to amend. See Order, ECF No. 4. Judge Watson granted Lagmay three extensions of time to file an amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 19, 35, 40. Between May and September 2015, although Lagmay filed numerous motions, notices, memoranda, letters, and requests, he failed to file an amended pleading. See generally ECF Nos. 5-7, 9-12, 14-18, 20, 21, 23-33, 36-39, 41, 42, 44, 45. On September 21, 2015, Judge Watson dismissed the action with prejudice for Lagmay's failure to state a claim and failure to comply with court orders. Dismissal Order, ECF No. 46.

         On October 7, 2015, Lagmay filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 52, that was docketed in the Ninth Circuit on October 19, 2015, as No. 15-17068. ECF No. 55. Lagmay continued to object and file memoranda and requests in the District of Hawaii after noticing his appeal. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 57, 58, 61, 65, 66, 68, 69.

         On June 9, 2016, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Paul J. Watford denied Lagmay's request for an injunction and to telephone the court, and referred his remaining motions to the three-judge panel assigned to consider the merits of his appeal. ECF No. 70. On December 22, 2016, Defendants Judges J. Clifford Wallace, Edward Leavy, and Raymond C. Fisher affirmed the dismissal of Lagmay's action with prejudice, finding that he failed to present arguments “suggesting that the district court abused its discretion. Thus, Lagmay abandoned the appeal of the district court's judgments.” Lagmay v. Nobriga, 671 F. App'x 1001, 1002 (9th Cir. 2016) (Mem.); ECF No. 72 (Order); ECF No. 73 (Mandate). There is no indication in the record that Lagmay sought a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

         2.Civil No. ...


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.