United States District Court, D. Hawaii
THAD J. THOMPSON, #A5013250, Plaintiff,
SGT. IKEGAMI, et al., Defendants,
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ACTION;
DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
the Court are Plaintiff Thad J. Thompson's Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”) and third Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 19, 20. Thompson Defendants
HCF Sergeant (Sgt.) Ikegami, Counselor Katherine Torres,
Captain (Capt.) Paleka, and Law Librarian Marina violated his
First Amendment right to access the court.
SAC is DISMISSED. Because it is clear that he cannot amend to
adequately state a claim, despite being given the opportunity
to do so, this dismissal is with prejudice. Thompson's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
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
Cir. 2002). That is, 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).
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). When it is clear the
complaint cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal without
leave to amend is appropriate. Sylvia Landfield Trust v.
City of L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
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.
about May 15, 2017, Thompson was transferred to the High
Special Housing Unit (HSHU), where he was told that he could
keep only three inches of paperwork in his cell per Sgt.
Ikegami's instructions. Thompson protested that he needed
his paperwork and legal books to properly litigate his
pending action, Thompson v. Afamasaga, No.
1:16-cv-00128 JMS-KSC (D. Haw. 2016). He also says he was
denied adequate writing supplies.
immediately began requesting his legal materials and writing
supplies from Defendants Ikegami, Paleka, and Torres. Torres
allegedly told Thompson there were no manilla envelopes,
because “times are hard.” SAC, ECF. No. 20,
PageID #118. Thompson also asked Torres to forward his
requests for law library and kiosk sessions to Defendant
Marina, but says he has attended the law library only once in
the past eight and a half weeks. He claims that he can have
copies made only at the law library.
suggests these restrictions have impeded his litigation in
No. 1:16-cv-00128 JMS-KSC. He states that he has been
“forced” to draw lines on the backs of other
paper, make manilla envelopes, and hand copy his documents.
SAC, ECF No. 20, PageID #119. He points to an
“imminent” Motion Requesting Service of Subpoena
and a settlement conference scheduled for September 12, 2017,
in No. 1:16-cv-00128 JMS-KSC, arguing these show that he has
suffered an actual injury to his access to the court. See
id., ECF No. 57 (Mot.) .
filing this action, Thompson has filed two other civil rights
suits in this court. See Thompson v. Hawaii Dep't of
Public Safety, No. 1:17-cv-00250 DKW-KJM (D. Haw., filed
May 30, 2017), and Thompson v. Torres, No.
1:17-cv-00319 DKW-RLP (D. Haw., filed July 7, 2017).
Right of ...