United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; AND
(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge.
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”). Char raises negligence and
medical malpractice claims against Defendants Queens
Hospital, Brandi Gary, M.D., and Jane Does 1 and 2.
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.
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.
HEREBY ORDERED that:
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).