United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Dayson James Eblacas is incarcerated at the Oahu
Community Correctional Center (“OCCC”). Eblacas
alleges that Defendant Honolulu Police Department
(“HPD”) Officer Gerald Agbulos violated his
federal civil rights and state laws or regulations when
Agbulos shot him. See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #6-#9.
Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim, with
leave granted to amend on or before November 30, 2018.
Eblacas is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, who
alleges claims against a government officer, the court
conducts a pre-answer screening of his 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 §
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. at 678.
12(b)(6) 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 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 (stating Rule 8
pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 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
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 to state a
claim. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States was violated, and (2) 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). A plaintiff must also allege that he suffered a
specific injury as a result of the 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).
provides few details in support of his claims. He states only
that Officer Agbulos was in no immediate danger when he shot
him, punched him twice in the face, and “yanked [him]
out the window” Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID #3-4. He
complains that Agbulos failed to say “HPD, freez,
” suggesting that this violated an HPD policy.
Id., PageID #4. Eblacas claims that Agbulos used
excessive force, failed to follow unidentified “policy
and procedures, ” and was a threat to his safety.
Eblacas is now paralyzed from the chest down.
provides insufficient facts to give context to his claims and
nudge them from the merely possible to plausible. He does not
state when and where this shooting occurred, explain what
preceded or followed it, or even speculate as to why Officer
Agbulos opened fire on him. Eblacas does not say whether
Agbulos was on or off duty when he shot him, whether the
shooting occurred incident to an arrest or attempted escape,
whether he was resisting such an arrest, or was completely
without provocation. Eblacas does not say whether he is
awaiting trial for charges stemming from this incident, was
charged and acquitted, was charged and convicted, or was
never charged. He also fails to explain whether Officer
Agbulos was investigated for this shooting and the results of
such investigation. That is, whether Agbulos, if charged, is
awaiting trial, was convicted, or was acquitted of such
charges. These details are necessary to determine whether
Eblacas states a plausible claim for relief.
Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to allow the court
to understand Eblacas' claims against Officer Agbulos.
See McHenry v. Renne,84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.
1996). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555. To satisfy the requirements of Rule 8, a
pleading must set forth a minimum factual or legal basis for
each claim that is sufficient to give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiff's claims are and the grounds
on which they rest. While the court construes Eblacas'
allegations liberally and affords him the benefit of any
doubt, it will not speculate about Eblacas' claims, and
has “no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to
pro se litigants.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.
225, 231 (2004). While Eblacas need not plead the legal basis
for a ...