United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN PART AND STAYING
Oki Mollway, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Brian Aquino is incarcerated at the Halawa
Correctional Facility (“HCF”), and brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Comp., ECF. No. 1.
Aquino alleges Defendants the State of Hawaii, and State of
Hawaii Doe Defendants 1-10; the Hawaiian Monarch Hotel and
Hawaiian Monarch Hotel Doe Defendants 1-10 violated the
Fourth Amendment when they entered a private apartment
without a warrant and arrested him and his girlfriend.
Complaint is DISMISSED in part pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(a-b) for failure to state
a colorable claim for relief. Aquino's claims alleging
that his personal rights were violated under the
Fourth Amendment are STAYED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
administratively close this action.
Aquino is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis the court
is required to 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) (screening under §
1915(e)(2)); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (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.
“Threadbare 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 Cir. 2009).
litigants' pleadings must be liberally construed and all
doubts should be 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.
complaint, in its entirety, states:
Both Defendants violated my Fourth Amendment rights, by
teaming up at around 5:45 a.m. May 3 2017 to raid a privately
owned apt[.] in a private an[d] exclusive part of the
Hawaiian Monarch Hotel in Waikiki, without any kind of arrest
warrant or search warrant and unannounced rammed the door
down, with the aid of the Hotel security & management
getting through a private lobby & elevator then on to the
22nd floor, to illeagaly [sic] arrest my girlfriend & I!
Comp., ECF No. 1, PageID #5. Aquino names the “State of
Hawaii 10 John Does, ” and the “Hawaiian
Monarch Hotel 10 John Does, ” in their individual and
official capacities as Defendants and seeks $150, 000 from
each Defendant. Id., PageID #1-2, 8.
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.,