United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ACTION;
DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff Thad Thompson's Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC"), and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. ECF Nos. 12, 13. Thompson is incarcerated at the
Halawa Correctional Facility ("HCF") and is
proceeding in forma pauperis. He names HCF Discipline
Committee Chair Nolan Uehara in his individual and official
capacities as the only Defendant and seeks injunctive relief
and monetary damages. Thompson alleges Uehara violated his
right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment during a
disciplinary proceeding held at HCF on or about May 2, 2017.
following reasons, Thompson's SAC is DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a). Because it is
clear that Thompson cannot amend his pleadings to state a
claim, despite being given an 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(e)(2) and 1915A(a).
Courts 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(e)(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.
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
plaintiffs 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).
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).
March 27 and 29, 2017, Thompson was charged with fighting
with two other inmates. On April 19, 2017, HCF employee
Monica Chun gave Thompson two Notices of Report of Misconduct
and Hearing, informing of the hearing to be held twenty-four
hours later regarding both charges. Thompson asked Chun to
postpone the hearings so that he could find witnesses, and
Chun did so.
2, 2017, Uehara chaired the hearing on Thompson's
charges. Thompson questioned why Chun was not participating
in the hearings and whether Uehara would call Thompson's
witnesses. Uehara told Thompson he would not call
Thompson's witnesses, and he questioned whether Thompson
intended to participate in the hearing at that time. Words
were exchanged, and ultimately, Uehara determined that
Thompson was refusing to participate. See ECF No.
7-1, PagelD #32, 34 ("Findings and Disposition of
Corrective Action"). Uehara found Thompson guilty of
both charges and sanctioned him to thirty days segregation
for each charge, to run consecutively. Id.