United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND
DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Oki Mollway United States District Judge
this court is pro se Plaintiff Noe Kim
Raquinio's non-prisoner civil rights Complaint and
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“Application”). See ECF
Nos. 1, 2. Raquinio names the State of Hawaii, Hawaii Police
Department, Detective Jeremy “Scott” Lewis, and
Officers Marco Segobia, Edward Lewis, and Kyle Hirayama as
Defendants. See ECF No. 1, PageID #s 1-4. He seeks
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Id. at 5.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this court has screened the
Complaint and dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend,
denying Raquinio's Application as moot.
proceed in forma pauperis, Raquinio must demonstrate
that he is unable to prepay or provide security for court
fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Before
granting Raquinio's Application, this court screens the
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. § 1915(e)(2).
court must construe a pro se complaint liberally,
accept all allegations of material fact as true, and construe
those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
Leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all
possible that the plaintiff can correct the complaint's
defects. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th
seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants.
The requirements for relief under § 1983 are: “(1)
a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or
created by federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by
conduct of a ‘person' (4) acting under color of
state law.” Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418,
1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
Complaint states that, on January 11, 2017, “Defendants
illegally conducted a[n] organized stop, leading to a[n]
intentional false arrest.” ECF No. 5, PageID # 6.
Raquinio alleges that he was forced out of his car by
“men in plain cloth[e]s, ” then handcuffed and
searched. See Id. at 5. He further alleges that
there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and there were no
warrants issued against him. See Id. Raquinio states
that he now suffers from “Degenerative Disc Disease
which began in 2011-2012, emotional distress, financial and
social destruction, [and] escaping [sic] physical harm,
” and he seeks $1, 221, 000 in monetary damages for,
among other things, violations of his civil rights related to
his disability. See Id. at 7.
careful consideration of the matters set forth in the
Complaint, the court dismisses the Complaint with leave to
The Complaint Against the State is Dismissed for Lack of
Complaint seeks only monetary relief against Defendants,
including against the State of Hawaii. This claim against the
State of Hawaii is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power
of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of
the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const.
Amend. XI. Under the Eleventh Amendment, a state is immune
from lawsuits for monetary damages or other retrospective
relief brought in federal court by its own citizens or
citizens of other states. Frew ex rel. Frew v.
Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004); Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986); Pennhurst ...