United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) & 1915A(a) WITH LEAVE GRANTED TO
MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is pro se Plaintiff Henry Lagmay's prisoner
civil rights Complaint. ECF No. 1. Lagmay claims that
Defendants 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.
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).
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
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).
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
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.
No. 1:15-cv-00166 DKW-RLP
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.
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.
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.