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.

Char v. Queens Hospital

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 15, 2018

MARK ALAN CHAR, #A0234438, Plaintiff,
v.
QUEENS HOSPITAL, DR. BRANDI GARY, JANE DOES 1-2, Defendants.

          ORDER (1) GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          J. Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge.

         Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Mark Alan Char's (1) prisoner civil rights Complaint and (2) Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner (“IFP Application”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Char is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Oahu Community Correctional Center (“OCCC”).[1] Char raises negligence and medical malpractice claims against Defendants Queens Hospital, Brandi Gary, M.D., and Jane Does 1 and 2.

         Char's IFP Application is GRANTED. Because Char fails to allege a federal cause of action, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims and his Complaint is DISMISSED. Char is granted leave to amend his Complaint, if possible.

         I. IFP APPLICATION

         Char qualifies as a pauper and his IFP Application is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. As a prisoner, Char is obligated to pay the full filing fee regardless of the outcome of this suit or whether he is later released. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) & (e)(2). Char shall make an initial partial payment of 20% of the current balance of his account, if that balance exceeds $10.00. Thereafter, Char shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to his account, when his account exceeds $10.00. Id.

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         (1) The Hawaii Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), Warden of the Oahu Community Correctional Center, or designees, shall calculate, collect, and remit to the Clerk of Court an initial partial payment equaling 20% of the amount in Char's account (if that amount exceeds $10.00), and thereafter, monthly payments equaling 20% of Char's preceding month's income or balance when the account exceeds $10.00, until the $350.00 civil filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). These payments must be identified by the name and number assigned to this action.

         (2) The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on Char, the OCCC Warden and Financial Office, Shelley Nobriga Harrington, Esq., and Laurie Nadamoto, Esq., DPS Litigation Coordinators, and submit a copy of this order to the District of Hawaii's Financial Department.

         II. STATUTORY SCREENING

         The court is required to conduct a pre-Answer screening of all prisoners' pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a claim or complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune from suit. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010).

         Screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) involves the same standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (screening under § 1915(e)(2)); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (screening under § 1915A). 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). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or an “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

         Pro se 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, 203 F.3d at 1130. If the complaint cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. ...


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.