United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(E) & 1915A(A)
E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Brian Aquino, a prisoner incarcerated at the Halawa
Correctional Facility (“HCF”), brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Am. Compl.,
ECF. No. 14. Aquino states that Defendant HCF Warden Scott
Harrington denied his request to be moved to protective
custody. He alleges this violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment. Aquino names Harrington in his individual and
official capacities and seeks damages and a transfer from
following reasons, Aquino's amended Complaint is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) &
1915A(a-b) for his failure to state a plausible claim for
relief with leave granted to amend.
Aquino is a prisoner and is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
court must screen his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). The court must dismiss
a complaint or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from defendants
who are immune from suit. See Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621
F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. §
under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) involves the same
standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing screening under §
1915(e)); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,
1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing screening pursuant to §
1915A). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “contain
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) (internal quotation
marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” 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.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The “mere possibility
of misconduct” or an “unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation” falls short
of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see
also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
litigants' pleadings must be liberally construed and all
doubts resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Leave to
amend must be granted if it appears the plaintiff can correct
the defects in the complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). If 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).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
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).
Official Capacity Claims Against Harrington Are
Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal
court against a state, its agencies, and state officials
acting in their official capacities.” Aholelei v.
Dep't of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.
2007). Defendants named in their official capacities are
subject to suit under § 1983 only “for prospective
declaratory and injunctive relief . . . to enjoin an alleged
ongoing violation of federal law.” Oyama v. Univ.
of Haw., 2013 WL 1767710, at *7 (D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2013)
(quoting Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th
Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Levin v.
Commerce Energy Inc., 560 U.S. 413 (2010)); see also
Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
court lacks jurisdiction over Aquino's claims for
prospective injunctive relief (a transfer to another
facility). Official capacity claims against ...