United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Sione Finefeuiaki's First
Amended Complaint (FAC) and two Notices that identify
Defendants and state that Finefeuiaki will stand on Counts
I-III, and VII in the original Complaint. See FAC,
ECF No. 7; Notices, ECF Nos. 8, 9. Finefeuiaki, a Maui
Community Correctional Center (MCCC) pretrial detainee,
claims that MCCC staff denied him safe custody, housing,
religious materials, mail, and medical care.
fails to state a claim in Counts IV, V, VI, and VII (in
part), and those claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(a-b). The FAC states
colorable claims against Adult Corrections Officers (ACO)
Zane, Gouvea, Conrady, Use; Sergeants Hedge and Shores; and
Captains Kawaa and Labason (Defendants) in Counts I-III and
VII (in part), for failure-to-protect and excessive use of
force. These claims shall be served and require a response.
court must screen the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), and dismiss the FAC or any claim
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) (discussing § 1915(e)(2));
Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
2010) (discussing § 1915A(b)).
1915 screening involves the same standard of review as that
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
(screening under § 1915(e)(2)); Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (screening
under § 1915A(b)). That is, 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.
12(b)(6), in turn, is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a).
Zixiang Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.
2013). Under Rule 8, a complaint must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed
factual allegations are not required, but a complaint must
allege enough facts to provide both “fair notice”
of the claim asserted and “the grounds upon which [that
claim] rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 & n.3 (2007) (citation and quotation
marks omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 555
(stating Rule 8 pleading standard “demands more than an
accusation”). The “mere possibility of
misconduct” falls short of meeting this standard.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 555; 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.
25, 2018, Finefeuiaki filed the original Complaint,
complaining of incidents at MCCC between March 29 and April
12, 2018. Finefeuiaki alleged that unnamed ACOs: (1) failed
to protect him from an assault by three other inmates (Count
I); (2) returned him to the same housing module after the
assault, despite his spoken fears, where he was assaulted
again by a “close custody inmate” (Counts II and
III); (3) rehoused him in an allegedly overcrowded
“safe watch” cell, where his mattress, personal
items, and mail delivery was withheld for twelve hours a day,
and bible and religious handbook were apparently lost for
five days (Counts IV-VI); and (4) dragged him by his ankles
and wrists to and from his cell during an inspection and left
him on the floor, despite their knowledge of
Finefeuiaki's serious back injury, recent assaults, and
ongoing pain. See Compl., ECF. No. 1, PageID #6-12.
18, 2018, Finefeuiaki's in forma pauperis application was
granted. Order, ECF No. 5.
25, 2018, the court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b)(1) and dismissed
all claims against Defendants named in their official
capacities with prejudice, and Counts IV-VI, and VII in part,
with leave to amend. See July 25, 2018 Order, ECF
No. 6. The July 25, 2018 Order carefully explained that any
amended pleading would supersede, that is, replace the
original Complaint. See id., PageID #48. As an
alternative, Finefeuiaki was told that he could notify the
court that he would stand on his identified colorable claims
in Counts I-III and VII (in part) and the Complaint would be
served as limited when he identified the unnamed
ACOs. Id., PageID #49.
September 10, 2018, Finefeuiaki filed the two Notices and the
FAC. ECF Nos. 7-8-9. The Notices state that Finefeuiaki
elects to stand on his claims in Counts I-III and VII in the
original Complaint, and identify the MCCC staff allegedly
liable for these claims. The FAC also identifies the unnamed
MCCC staff and realleges all of Finefeuiaki's
claims, including dismissed Counts IV-VI and VII (in part),
in apparent disregard of the court's clear discussion of