United States District Court, D. Hawaii
E. KOBAYASHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Mark Alan Char's first
amended prisoner civil rights complaint (FAC). ECF No.5. Char
is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Halawa
Correctional Facility. Char alleges that Defendants Honolulu News
Stations KHON, KHNL, KITV, and their unidentified employees
John and Jane Does 1-50 violated the Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments and state law beginning on or about
August 1, 2016, and thereafter, when they broadcast news
reports about his arrest and criminal
again fails to allege a federal cause of action, despite now
labeling his claims as brought under the United States
Constitution in addition to state law. Char's FAC is
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). It is clear that Char
cannot amend these claims to state a federal cause of action
and this dismissal is with prejudice.
originally alleged that KHON, KITV, KHNL, and their
unidentified employees committed “slander/ defamation,
reputational injury, [and] libel by broadcasting false
information” about him on the nightly news on and after
August 1, 2016, when they reported on his arrest and criminal
proceedings. Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #5. Because Char
alleged no federal claims, the court notified him that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims and
dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. The court
informed Char that, in light of this holding and the guidance
provided regarding his claims, if he elected to voluntarily
dismiss this action, the court would vacate the Order
Granting In Forma Pauperis and waive any further payment of
fees. See Order (1) Granting In Forma Pauperis; and
(2) Dismissing Complaint, ECF No. 3, PageID #22-23.
Char elected to file the FAC and attempt to allege federal
claims. The FAC realleges the same facts and state law claims
of libel, slander, defamation, and reputational injury as
alleged in the original Complaint. Char now asserts
additional state law torts of negligence and intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress. He also broadly
asserts, without any factual support, that Defendants were
“deliberate indifferent to Plaintiffs [sic] clearly
established constitutional rights acted with a purpose to
harm Plaintiff, ” in violation of the “usages of
rights, privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiffs [sic]
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States and the State of Hawaii.” FAC, ECF
No. 5, PageID #32.
seeks only damages for mental anguish, emotional distress,
embarrassment, and humiliation.
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).
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).