Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raquinio v. State

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 12, 2018

NOE KIM RAQUINIO, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF HAWAII, HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT, JEREMY “SCOTT” LEWIS, MARCO SEGOBIA, EDWARD LEWIS, and KYLE HIRAYAMA, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION.

         Before 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.

         Pursuant 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.

         II. STANDARD.

         To 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).

         The 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 Cir. 2000).

         III. ANALYSIS.

         Raquinio 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).

         The 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.

         After careful consideration of the matters set forth in the Complaint, the court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.

         A. The Complaint Against the State is Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction.

         The 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.

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.