United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Oki Mollway, United States District Judge
September 29, 2017, Plaintiff Dianne Hoapili, proceeding
pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint in this
matter along with an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (“IFP
Application”). See ECF Nos. 15 & 16.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this court has
screened the Second Amended Complaint and determined that it
fails to state a viable claim over which this court has
jurisdiction. The court therefore dismisses the Second
Amended Complaint and denies Hoapili's IFP Application.
proceed in forma pauperis, Hoapili must demonstrate
that she is unable to prepay the court fees, and that she
sufficiently pleads claims. See Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Before granting
Hoapili's IFP Application, this court screens the Second
Amended Complaint to see whether it is (1) frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
factual allegations in Hoapili's Second Amended Complaint
are sparse, and the relief she seeks is unclear. The Second
Amended Complaint alleges that, in 1990, Hoapili was subject
to a search and seizure by various federal law enforcement
agencies, as well as a state foreclosure proceeding. The
Second Amended Complaint then alleges that, in 1990 and 1991,
she was indicted, tried, and convicted in this court.
See ECF No. 16. On December 17, 1992, the Ninth
Circuit reversed Hoapili's conviction and sentence with
respect to charges of conspiracy, false statements, mail
fraud, and false claims, determining that the record had
raised a good faith doubt as to Hoapili's competency to
waive counsel when she proceeded to trial pro se.
See United States v. Hoapili, 1992 WL 379398
(9thCir. Dec. 17, 1992).
Second Amended Complaint says: “Hoapili seeks a written
conclusion of law in this Second Amended Complaint to USA v.
Dianne K. Hoapili Criminal No. 90-01570 HMF by rule of law at
law.” ECF No. 16, PageID # 131. But it is not at all
clear what “written conclusion of law” Hoapili is
asking this court to provide. The factual allegations
combined with the relief requested simply fail to put
Defendants and this court on notice of what Hoapili is
seeking. Instead, Defendants and this court are left to guess
what conclusion Hoapili is seeking. Hoapili did not, for
example, clearly assert the possible claims that were
discussed by this court in previous orders.
this court cannot discern any viable claim asserted in the
Second Amended Complaint over which this court might have
subject matter jurisdiction, the court dismisses the Second
Amended Complaint, giving Hoapili leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint no later than October 23, 2017. In any such
Third Amended Complaint, Hoapili must allege facts satisfying
subject matter jurisdiction requirements, as well as
specifically identify the relief being sought. Any Third
Amended Complaint must be complete in itself. That is, it may
not incorporate by reference any document previously filed
with this court. Any Third Amended Complaint should include
only facts relevant to Hoapili's claims, which she should
clearly identify. Any Third Amended Complaint should also
identify which Defendant each claim is being asserted against
and describe why a claim is being asserted against any
particular Defendant. Before filing any Third Amended
Complaint, Hoapili should consider whether the claim(s) would
be barred by the applicable statute of limitation. To ensure
the clarity of her Third Amended Complaint, Hoapili should
ask herself, “Would a person unfamiliar with the facts
of this case be able to easily understand the allegations
that I am making, know which claims are asserted against
whom, and understand the relief being sought in court?”
Second Amended Complaint is dismissed, and the IFP
Application is denied as moot. The court grants Hoapili leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint that states a viable claim
against identified defendants no later than October 23, 2017.
Hoapili may submit another IFP Application at that time.
Before filing another IFP Application, Hoapili should
consider whether she can establish that she is indeed a
pauper. See 2017 Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii,
visited September 12, 2017) (setting poverty guideline for a
family of 2 in Hawaii at $18, 670).
Hoapili chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint, she must
either pay the filing fee or submit another IFP Application.
If Hoapili fails to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, or
if she fails to submit another IFP Application or fails to
pay the filing ...