United States District Court, D. Hawaii
JUSTIN M. OLIVER, #A4015015, Plaintiff,
RICHARD ASCUNCION, ACO GRIMLEY, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is pro se Plaintiff Justin Mitchell Oliver's
prisoner civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 1. Oliver alleges Oahu Community
Correctional Center (OCCC) officers Richard Ascuncion and ACO
Grimley violated his constitutional rights when they
allegedly used excessive force against him and thereafter
denied him medical care for nine days.
court has screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) and finds that it states
a claim in part. Claims against Defendants Ascuncion and
Grimley in their official capacities are DISMISSED. The
Complaint as thereby limited shall be served on Ascuncion and
Grimley, who are required to file a response.
court performs a pre-answer screening of Oliver's
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(a). Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep't, 885 F.3d
639, 641 (9th Cir. 2018). Claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek damages
from defendants who are immune from suit must be dismissed.
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)).
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 v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Under Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 &
n.3 (2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see
also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 555.
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.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege: (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).
alleges Ascuncion and Grimley attacked him at OCCC on or
about September 23, 2016. He says that he felt his ribs break
during the attack, but they denied his multiple requests for
medical care. After nine days in solitary confinement, Oliver
was given chest x-rays, which revealed that he had three
fractured ribs. Oliver names Ascuncion and Grimley in their
individual and official capacities and seeks damages.
Official Capacity Claims are Dismissed
1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of
civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for
litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged
deprivations of civil liberties. The Eleventh Amendment bars
such suits unless the State has waived its immunity.”
Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66
(1989). There are three exceptions to this general rule: (1)
the State may waive its Eleventh Amendment defense; (2)
“Congress may abrogate States' sovereign immunity
by acting pursuant to a grant of constitutional
authority”; and (3) a suit seeking prospective
injunctive relief may proceed. Douglas v. Calif. Dept. of
Youth Auth., 271 F.3d 812, 817 (9th Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted); Aholelei v. Dep't of Pub.
Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The
Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal
court against a state, its agencies, and state officials
acting in their official capacities.”). Defendants
named in their official capacities are subject to suit under
§ 1983 only “for prospective declaratory and
injunctive relief . . . to enjoin an alleged ongoing
violation of federal law.” Oyama v. Univ. of
Haw., 2013 WL 1767710, at *7 (D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2013)
(quoting Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th
Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Levin v.
Commerce Energy Inc., 560 U.S. 413 (2010)).
does not allege the State has waived its immunity, and
Congress has not abrogated such immunity. Nor does Oliver
allege an ongoing constitutional violation or seek
prospective injunctive relief. Oliver's official ...