United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN PART AND DENYING MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
the Court are Plaintiff Thad Thompson's Complaint and
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 1, 3. Thompson is
incarcerated at the Halawa Correctional Facility
("HCF") and is proceeding in forma pauperis. He
names HCF Counselor Katherine Torres, Captain Paleka,
Residency Department Supervisor John Doe, and High Kitchen
and Law Library Supervisors Jane Does 1- 2, as Defendants in
their individual and official capacities. Thompson claims
Defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments when
they allegedly retaliated against him for filing suit and
denied him due process during his housing and custody
states a retaliation claim against Defendant Katherine Torres
and service of the Complaint is appropriate for this claim
only. The remaining claims and Defendants in the Complaint
are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A(a), for Thompson's failure to state a claim, with
leave granted to amend. 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 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).
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).
has received three disciplinary infractions at HCF since
November 22, 2016. A hearing was held regarding the latest
two charges on May 2, 2017, after which Thompson was found
guilty of both infractions. He was sanctioned to thirty days
concurrent segregation for each charge of fighting. Thompson
remained in the general population for two weeks, however,
and was moved to the High Special Housing Unit
("HSHU") on May 15, 2017. Thompson calculated that
he would be released to the general population on Sunday,
June 4, 2017, thirty days from the date he was found guilty
of the two latest charges.
May 24 and 30, 2017, Thompson filed two federal lawsuits in
the District of Hawaii. See Thompson v. Dep 't of
Public Safety, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00235 LEK (D. Haw.
May 24, 2017) (alleging Defendants Torres and Paleka denied
him access to the courts); Thompson v. Dep't of
Public Safety, et al, No. 1:17-cv-00250 DKW (D. Haw. May
30, 2017) (alleging HCF Discipline Committee Chair Nolan
Uehara denied him due process during the disciplinary
proceedings for his March 2017 infractions for fighting).
Thompson also moved to reopen another suit, Thompson v.
City andCty. of Honolulu, et al, No l:17-cv-00002 JMS
(D. Haw.) (dismissed Feb. 21, 2017; request to reopen May 29,
2017). Thompson also has a suit pending in this court,
Thompson v. Afamasaga, No. 1:16-cv-00128 JMS (D.
Haw. Mar. 21, 2016) (alleging HCF guard assaulted him).
Friday, June 2, 2017, an inmate was released one day early
from the HSHU. When Thompson questioned whether he too would
be released early, the guards told him to file a grievance.
On Monday, June 5, 2017, Defendant Torres gave Thompson
written notice that he was being held in HSHU administrative
segregation pending a review of his custody status. Torres
allegedly smiled, made "googly eyes, " and laughed
under her breath when she did so. Compl., ECF No. 1, PagelD
#6. Thompson submitted written requests for further
explanation to Torres and Paleka on June 14, 15, 25, and 26,
2017, which he alleges were "answered with vague if any
answers at all." Id.
complains that the HSHU has no programs, classes, workline
jobs, TV, or microwave, and has "significantly less
social activity, " than general population housing. He
further alleges that Jane Doe 1 kitchen supervisor has given
him only "finger food" since June 23, 2017, and
Jane Doe 2 law library supervisor has not scheduled him for
"reasonable" law library visits. Compl., ECF No. 1,
states that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies
regarding his claims because he seeks injunctive relief. In
addition to such injunctive relief, Thompson seeks damages,
and a transfer to the Federal Detention Center-Honolulu.
First Amendment: Retaliation
claims that Defendant Torres retaliated against him for
filing suits when she denied him writing supplies, refused to
submit his requests for law library or kiosk time, and gave
"vague and nonsensical responses" to his requests
for information regarding his continued housing in the HSHU.
Id. He claims Captain Paleka retaliated against him
by failing to answer his requests for information regarding
his continued housing in the HSHU. Thompson claims Jane Doe 1
retaliated against ...