United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DECLINING TO FILE PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT
SUBJECT TO PREFILING REVIEW ORDER
C. Kay, Sr. United States District Judge.
February 2, 2018, Plaintiff Truman Lee Ketchmark
(“Ketchmark”) filed a complaint in Hawaii state
court. Compl., ECF No. 1-2. Defendant Brown-Williamson
Tobacco Corporation (“Defendant” or
“BWTC”) removed the original complaint on March 1,
2018. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. The original complaint
attempted to state claims against BWTC “and all other
tobacco companies responsible et al. and et cetra” for
injuries suffered by (and in some cases, the deaths of)
Ketchmark and his “heirs and assigns.” Compl.,
ECF No. 1-2 at p. 1.
March 8, 2018, BWTC moved to dismiss the original complaint.
Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 5. On July 17, 2018, the
Court held a hearing on BWTC's Motion to Dismiss and
entered an Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Truman Lee Ketchmark's Complaint Filed on March 1, 2018
(“July 17, 2018 Order”). ECF No. 21. The July 17,
2018 Order required that Ketchmark file any amended complaint
“within thirty days of the entry of this Order or
judgment will be entered against him. . . . Additionally, any
amended complaint Plaintiff files pro se in this Court will
be subject to the Pre-Filing Review Order, ECF No. 14,
entered in Ketchmark v. Obama, Civ. No. 10-00725
DAE-LEK (D. Haw. Feb. 24, 2011).” July 17, 2018 Order
at p. 19.
10, 2018, Ketchmark, pro se, filed a document entitled:
“A More Definite Statement and Motion For: [sic]
Removal of this Case to Arbitration.” (“Amended
Complaint”). ECF No. 23. The Court construes this
document as a proposed Amended Complaint subject to the
Pre-Filing Review Order.
careful review, the Court finds that the factual allegations
in the proposed Amended Complaint fail to state a viable
claim. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in
Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555-57 (2007), the factual allegations in a complaint,
assuming them to be true, must possess enough
“heft” to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“[T]he pleading standard Rule
announces does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation”). A
complaint is required to “state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
the proposed Amended Complaint wholly lacks a cognizable
legal theory and sufficient factual allegations to support a
cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The
proposed Amended Complaint includes a host of seemingly
disconnected “allegations, ” making it
“difficult to discern what relief [Ketchmark's]
Complaint seeks from whom.” Ketchmark v. Williamson
Tobacco Company et al., Civ. No. 17-00260 SOM-KSC (D.
Haw. June 8, 2017), ECF No. 5-6, at pp. 3-4. For example, the
proposed Amended Complaint contains the following
allegations, among others:
[1.] The priests' military security guards, & body
guards captured Jesus, and handed him to King Herod, said to
be a Saudi Arabian, his security guards, and police, who
handed him- to Governor Pontius Pilot's police, and
military, & body guards as an example. I would like to
send more than shoe boxes to our disaster areas such as
Kalapana Gardens and now Leilani Estates. . . .
[2.] I have been arrested 5 or more times to have my blood
tested or stolen against my will or religion in the state of
Washington and Medicare did not pay all my expenses. They
keep me a week to 10 days in the hospital for a cool down
period so I do not kill my wife, Donna, for calling the
Health Department - who calls the police with handcuffs to
kidnap me and hold me hostage, and steal my blood. All blood
tests were exactly correct - my wife had nothing to worry
about, except for how to alienate me and destroy our
partnership by way of a dissolution. . . .
[3.] I find it a horror story to have to go through x-ray
machines. I tell my dentist the same thing. When I worked for
Clarke County Savings and Loan in Camas Washington, I had a
Chairman of the Board of Directors who was a retire dentist.
He had no thumbs. He used to hold the plates in his patients
mouth with his thumbs. Each side.. He obtained cancer of the
thumbs and had them amputated.
ECF No. 23 at pp. 2, 9, 10. Because the proposed Amended
Complaint plainly fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted, the court declines to file it pursuant to the
Pre-Filing Review Order, ECF No. 14, entered in Ketchmark
v. Obama, Civ. No. 10-00725 DAE-LEK (D. Haw. Feb. 24,
 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the
successor-in-interest to Defendant Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Company's United States tobacco business.
Def.'s Mem., ECF No. 5-1, at p. 1. Effective July 30,
2004, Reynolds American, Inc. acquired the stock of Brown
& Williamson USA, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, which owned the
assets of Brown & Williamson's United States tobacco
business. Id. at p. 1 n.1. Thereafter, R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company merged into Brown & Williamson USA, Inc.,
which was then renamed R.J. Reynolds Tobacco ...