United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MO'I KAPU, fka JON ELEU FREEMAN SANTOS, aka JON SANTOS, Plaintiff,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
7, 2017, Plaintiff King Kamehameha VII, Ni'i Loa Mo'i
Kapu ("Mo'i Kapu"), formerly known as John
Freeman Eleu Santos, proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended
Complaint that once again attempts to assert claims against
the State of Hawaii, the State Attorney General,
Sheriff's Division, and the Bureau of Conveyances,
challenging-as best the Court can discern-prior court rulings
as well as the sovereignty of the United States and the State
of Hawaii. Dkt. No. 7. The First Amended Complaint suffers
from the same deficiencies as Mo'i Kapu's original
Complaint, previously identified in the Court's May 15,
2017 Order granting his in forma pauperis
("IFP") Application and dismissing the Complaint
with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 4 (5/15/17 Order). Because
Mo'i Kapu once more fails to state a claim for relief or
establish any basis for this Court's subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the First Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and for a second time
GRANTS Mo'i Kapu leave to file an amended complaint as
detailed below. The Court cautions him that failure to file
an amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this
order by September 1, 2017 may result in the automatic
dismissal of this action.
Mo'i Kapu is appearing pro se, the Court liberally
construes his filings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d
1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The Supreme Court has
instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the
'inartful pleading' of pro se litigants.")
(citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982)
(per curiam)). The Court recognizes that "[u]nless it is
absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect... a
pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's
deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal
of the action." Lucas v. Dep 't of Corr.,
66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Crowley v.
Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2013).
The First Amended Complaint Is Dismissed With Leave to
review of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the
Court finds that like the original Complaint, it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As discussed
below, even liberally construed, the FAC fails to state any
discernible basis for judicial relief.
Standard of Review
Court subjects each civil action commenced pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and can order
the dismissal of any claims it finds "frivolous,
malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.
2000) (en banc) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
"not only permits but requires" the court to
sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint that fails to state a claim); Calhoun v.
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)
(holding that "the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners"). Because
Mo'i Kapu is appearing pro se, the Court liberally
construes the Complaint.
Court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted[.]" A Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal is proper when there is either a "'lack of
a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts
alleged.'" UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter
Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.
2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep
't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). A plaintiff
must allege "sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Weber
v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 521 F .3d 1061, 1065
(9th Cir. 2008). This tenet - that the court must accept as
true all of the allegations contained in the complaint -
"is inapplicable to legal conclusions."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Accordingly,
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1216 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[Allegations in a complaint or
counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a cause of
action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying
facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to
defend itself effectively.").
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Factual allegations that
only permit the Court to infer "the mere possibility of
misconduct" do not show that the pleader is entitled to
relief as required by Rule 8. Id. at 679.
The First Amended Complaint Fails To State A Claim For
the case with his original Complaint, it appears that
Mo'i Kapu is aggrieved by the district and appellate
courts' prior rulings in Algal Partners, L.P. vs. Jon
Freeman Eleu Santos, et al, Civil No. 13-00562 LEK-BMK
(D. Haw), the failure of the United States and/or State of
Hawaii to pay taxes to the Hawaiian Kingdom, and other
unspecified conduct by numerous entities and individuals.
Even given a liberal construction, the allegations in the FAC
once more fail to state any sort of cognizable claim against
any defendant. Mo'i Kapu alleges, in part-
The Hawaiian Kingdom has had it fully functioning government
of its sovereign's rights! Corporate State of Hawai'i
has no jurisdiction onto lands claim back by his Majesty for
Royal Patents for none payment of Taxes. Lands revert to his
Majesty. Until illegally occupied and continue to be occupied
by U.S. Military, corporate State of Hawai'i and its
corporative entities has not paid their fair share of Royalty
taxes. The Hawaiian Kingdom under King Kamehameha I, by
conquest, then King Kamehameha III, created its own
independent sovereign State recognized by the three great
nations England, France, and United States of America and
later 89 other nations from the world countries with treaty
that are still in effect today. Unlike the Cherokee Nation
the Hawaiian Kingdom has had it fully functioning government
of its sovereignty rights, until corporate business men
illegally took control by force with the help of the U.S.
Military Navy Command against Queen Liliuokalani on January
17, 1893 on the island of Oahu, committing treason against
the Queen by foreign residents residing as United State
citizens and subject of the kingdom. Today . . . along with
other corporate State of Hawaii employees "List of
Name" Exhibits-E Letter to Eric Holder justice
department under jurisdiction of this U.S. District Courts of
Hawai'i as a corporate State have been committed felons
for receiving moneys from the opposing State as a Sovereign
Hawaiian Nation and its lands. Accord[ing] to an Article III
Court established under and by Article III of the U.S.
Constitution in compliance with Article 43, 1907 Hague
Convention IV (36 U.S. Stat. 2277). Article III ...