United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN PART AND STAYING
Gillmor, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Mark Alan Char is incarcerated at the Oahu
Community Correctional Center (“OCCC”). Char
alleges that Defendants Honolulu Police Department
(“HPD”) Officers Anthony Smith, Ashley Stibbard,
Alan Lu, and Victor Lau violated his federal civil rights and
state law during his arrest on June 2, 2016. See
Comp., ECF. No. 1, PageID #6-#9.
19, 2018, the Court issued an ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY A PRISONER AND DISMISSING MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was ordered
to either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) submit a complete in
forma pauperis application containing the prison's
certification of the amount in his prison account, a copy of
his past six month prison account statement, and his best
estimation of his personal assets. Id. On July 23,
2018, Plaintiff paid the filing fee. ECF No. 6.
Complaint is DISMISSED IN PART pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a-b) for failure to state a colorable claim for damages
against Defendants named in their official capacities.
claims regarding his arrest on June 2, 2016, for which he is
awaiting prosecution, are STAYED pursuant to the doctrine set
forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The
Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close this case.
Char is a prisoner alleging claims against government
officers, the court screens his pleadings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 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 Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002,
1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
under § 1915A(b) involves the same standard of review as
that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012). 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.
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).
2, 2016, Officer Smith confronted Char in Char's
doctor's office parking lot, where Char went for help
after allegedly being the victim of road rage. Smith ordered
Char to put his hands on his car. Char raised his hands, but
did not put his hands on the car because it had been pepper
sprayed. Smith then pulled Char's right arm behind him,
allegedly dislocating Char's shoulder, although Char says
he was not resisting arrest. Char alleges Smith
intentionally, recklessly and negligently injured him during
this encounter. See Compl., ECF No. 1 (Count I
(excessive force) and Count IV (negligence)).
next claims that Defendants arrested him to cover up
Smith's alleged use of excessive force during the arrest.
Id. (Count II (abuse of process) and Count III
(intentional infliction of emotional distress
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). Additionally, 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 ...