United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, AND
(3) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Michael Seabright, Chief United States District Judge
February 15, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Jonathan Keola Namauu
(“Plaintiff”) filed a civil rights Complaint
against the State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety
(“DPS”) and possibly Halawa Correctional Facility
(“HCF”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) and a Motion
for Appointment of Counsel. ECF Nos. 3, 4. Based on the
following, the court GRANTS the IFP Application, DISMISSES
the Complaint with leave to amend, and DENIES the Motion for
Appointment of Counsel.
Plaintiff's IFP Application is Granted
has made the required showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to
proceed without prepayment of fees. Therefore, the court
GRANTS Plaintiff's IFP Application.
Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed for Failure to State a
Complaint alleges that while incarcerated at HCF, Plaintiff
suffered three strokes, one each year from 2010 to 2012.
Compl. ¶¶ III.B., C. The Complaint further alleges
that DPS/HCF was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's
health needs by failing to have a “full function of
medical staff” that could provide adequate follow-up
care. Id. ¶¶ III.A., C. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that DPS did not have enough staff at
HCF to take him to outpatient care. Id. ¶
III.C. Somewhat confusingly, the Complaint further alleges
that “no one else was involved, 911 medical staff, as
well as two therapist[s] ¶ 2016 [where] one therapist
had spoken state ain't paying his fees so he left, then a
lady therapist came after several months gone by, and she
[referred] me to therapy” elsewhere. Id.
result, Plaintiff's left hand does not function properly.
Id. Plaintiff cannot open his left hand, and he was
told that because so much time has passed without
“after care or treatments, ” his fingers may
never open unless he has surgery to cut tendons. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he exhausted the grievance process.
Id. ¶¶ III.C., IV.
filed the instant Complaint asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to
adequate medical care while incarcerated. From the face of
the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is no longer in
custody. The Complaint seeks compensatory damages for his
injury, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Id.
Standards of Review
court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the
dismissal of any claims it finds “frivolous, malicious,
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see,
e.g., Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that “the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
prisoners”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court
to sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a
state a claim, a pleading 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). In
considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the
court must set conclusory factual allegations aside, accept
non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and determine
whether these allegations state a plausible claim for relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)); see also Weber v. Dep't of Veterans
Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). A
complaint that lacks a cognizable legal theory or alleges
insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory fails to
state a claim. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter
Capital Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.
2013) (citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). A
district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply
with Rule 8 where it fails to provide the defendant fair
notice of ...