United States District Court, D. Hawaii
DAVID K. NAPOLEON, Plaintiff,
HAWAII CMTY. CORR. CTR., Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
A. Otake, United States District Judge
the court is pro se plaintiff Daniel K. Napoleon's
Complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No.
1. Napoleon alleges that he was denied medical care while he
was a pretrial detainee at the Hawaii Community Correctional
Center (HCCC),  allegedly resulting in the amputation of
his left index toe. HCCC is the only named Defendant.
following reasons, Napoleon's Complaint is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a
colorable claim for relief under § 1983. Napoleon may
file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies
identified below on or before November 16, 2018.
he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court is required to
conduct a pre-Answer screening of Napoleon's pleadings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must
dismiss a claim or complaint filed in forma pauperis 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) 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). 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). Rule 12 is read in conjunction with Rule
8(a), which requires that a complaint contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The
“mere possibility of misconduct” or an
“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me
accusation” falls short of meeting this plausibility
standard. Id.; 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.
BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS
says that he was taken to HCCC on December 29, 2017, where an
“[i]nfection developed per incarceration” and
“in requesting doctor, none was provided.”
Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #5. Napoleon reiterates throughout
his Complaint that there was “no doctor service @ Hilo
jail, ” and that he was “continually
denied” medical assistance as his “infection
became intolerable, both in pain and severity.”
Id., PageID #4. On January 26, 2018, when a
“red line appeared from [Napoleon's] toe/foot
infected area, up right leg and extended to the groin,
” Napoleon was taken to a hospital in Hilo, where his
toe was amputated. Id., PageID #4. Napoleon is
currently committed to the Hawaii State Hospital.
requests a federal investigation of “negligence and
malpractice [by] (Hilo Jail medical administered), ”
and release from the Hawaii State Hospital. Id.,
PageID #6 (stating that he seeks “the equivalent of
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Additionally, a
plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as a
result of a particular defendant's conduct and an
affirmative link between the injury and the violation of his
rights. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs.,
436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
371-72, 377 (1976).
names HCCC as the only Defendant to this suit. A jail, prison
facility, or state agency is not a “person”
amenable to suit under § 1983. See Allison v. Cal.
Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969);
Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 951 (9th Cir.
2004) (discussing state agencies) (citing Will v. Mich.
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 ...