United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM D. M. WOODS, #A0264228, Plaintiff,
DEANE HATAKEYAMA, M.D., Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff William Woods' prisoner
civil rights Complaint. ECF No. 1. Woods is incarcerated at
the Halawa Correctional Facility (“HCF”) and is
proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. Woods claims that
Defendant Deane Hatakeyama, M.D., violated the Eighth
Amendment when he allegedly denied Woods adequate health
care. For the following reasons, Woods' Complaint is
DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A(a) for failure to state a claim, albeit with leave to
was diagnosed with Ideopathic Pulmonary Atrial
Hypertension-Vasoreactive, Functional Class II, in August
2013. Woods says that he had been prescribed a specific
dosage of medication for pulmonary hypertension since that
time. Woods has been a patient of The Queen's Medical
Center (“QMC”) Pulmonary Hypertension Program
under the care of pulmonary hypertension specialist Dr. Chris
Flack since at least January 10, 2014. Woods says this
information should have been available in his prison
Hatakeyama met with Woods on or about November 28, 2016,
during Woods' medical intake assessment at HCF. Woods
authorized QMC to release his medical records that day, which
were faxed to HCF on or about December 7, 2016. Woods
complains that Dr. Hatakeyama lowered the dosage of his
medication and refused to increase it until the HCF Medical
Director reviewed his complaint. Woods alleges this change in
medication damaged his heart and increased his hypertension.
He seeks lifetime medical treatment and punitive damages.
courts must conduct a pre-answer screening in 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(b). The court 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(b)(2) and 1915A(b). “The purpose of [screening] is
‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious
suits need not bear the expense of responding.'”
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir.
2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
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)). A plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as
to each individual defendant's” deprivation of his
rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.
1988); see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989). That is, a plaintiff must demonstrate each
defendant's personal participation in the deprivation of
his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons
v. Navajo Cty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010).
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
plaintiff's 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.
names Dr. Hatakeyama in his individual and official
capacities. “The 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,
70-71 (1989) (“[A] suit against a state official in his
or her official capacity is not a suit against the official
but rather is a suit against the official's
office.”); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
Woods does not allege an ongoing violation of federal law,
there is no basis for his seeking prospective injunctive
relief. Claims against Dr. ...