United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; AND
(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
E. KOBAYASHI 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 alleges that Defendants
Honolulu News Stations KHON, KHNL, KITV and their
unidentified employees John and Jane Does 1-50 committed
“slander/defamation, reputational injury, [and] libel
by broadcasting false information” about him on August
1, 2016. Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #5.
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. 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 must screen all prisoners' pleadings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), and 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
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).
asserts federal jurisdiction for this suit arises under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  but pleads state
law claims only, for defamation, libel and slander. Federal
district courts “have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.”28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under
§ 1331, whether federal question jurisdiction exists is
governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule, ”
which provides that federal question jurisdiction may only be
invoked when a federal question is presented on the face of a
plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Generally,
an action is deemed to “arise under” federal law
when a “federal law creates the cause of action”
that the plaintiff has asserted. Gunn v. Minton, 568
U.S. 251, 257 (2013). Actions asserting state-law claims may
also “arise under” federal law for purposes of
federal question jurisdiction if the asserted state law: (1)
“necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, ”
(2) that is “actually disputed” and (3)
“substantial, ” and (4) “which a federal