United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, FED. #05963-122, Plaintiff,
HIROMICHI KOBAYASHI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge
the court is pro se Plaintiff Anthony Troy Williams'
First Amended Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 6. Williams is a
pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Federal Detention
Center, Honolulu (FDC-Honolulu). Williams alleges that
Defendants violated his rights under the First,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they allegedly denied
him equal protection of the law, due process, and the free
exercise of his religion.
following reasons, the FAC is DISMISSED for failure to state
a colorable claim for relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a-b). Williams may file an amended pleading as limited
below to correct the deficiencies in claims dismissed herein
without prejudice, on or before February 5, 2019.
court is required to screen the FAC, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a), and dismiss claims that are frivolous,
malicious, or fail to state a claim for relief, or that seek
damages from defendants who are immune from suit. See
Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010)
(discussing dismissal of prisoner suits under §
1915 screening involves the same standard of review as that
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).
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
accusation”). The “mere possibility of
misconduct” does not meet 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). The court must grant leave to amend if it appears
the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc). If a claim or complaint cannot be saved by
amendment, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.
Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of L.A., 729 F.3d 1189,
1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
Count I, Williams alleges that Warden Kobayashi retaliated
against him by (1) denying his personal minister's
application for “special visitor as a minister”
status, and (2) removing her from Williams' approved
visitors list. FAC, ECF No. 6, PageID #63. Williams says the
FDC-Honolulu chaplain had verified her credentials as a
minister, she had passed a background check, and she had been
allowed to visit him between December 2017 and February 2018.
Williams claims this violated his right to freely exercise
his religion under the First Amendment. See id.
Count II, Williams alleges that Captain Dixon retaliated
against him by delaying his outgoing and incoming emails for
three to ten days after Williams “took the FDC to
court, ” in contrast to other inmates' emails,
which are relayed within several hours. Id., PageID
#64. Williams claims this delay interferes with his ability
to communicate with his attorney, family, and friends, and
caused him to miss unidentified motions deadlines. Williams
alleges this violated his right to equal protection under the
Count III, Williams alleges that (1) his incoming and
outgoing legal mail is opened outside of his presence, and
(2) he is denied legal materials from outside of the prison.
See id., PageID #65. Williams names no Defendants
within this claim, but alleges elsewhere that Associate
Warden Card “prevented my legal mail from being mailed
out and ordered my legal mail to be opened outside of my
presence” when he named her as a Defendant.
Id., PageID #60. Williams claims this violated his
right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), and the “Common law.”
See FAC, ECF No. 6, PageID #59. He seeks prospective
injunctive relief only.
preliminary matter, the court will not refer to the original
Complaint or incorporate its statements of fact into the FAC
to determine whether Williams' allegations state a claim
or adequately identify the Defendants' connection to his
claims. Local Rule (LR) 10.3 states:
Any party filing or moving to file an amended complaint,
counterclaim, third-party complaint, or answer or reply
thereto shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended and
may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by
reference, except with leave of court.
LR10.3. The original Complaint was dismissed on October 22,
2018, and it is now superceded by the FAC, which must stand
on its own. The court will not ignore inconsistencies or
omissions between the two pleadings, but to the extent
Williams moves to incorporate by reference the original
Complaint, his motion is DENIED.
Claims Against Defendant Olsen are Dismissed
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings must contain
a “short and plain statement” of the court's
jurisdiction that shows the plaintiff is entitled to relief,
and a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Claims
must be set forth simply, concisely, and directly in a manner
that gives the defendant fair notice of the claims alleged.
See Rule 8(c)(1) and (d)(1). Thus, a complaint must
allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved
and set forth an affirmative link between each
defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. See
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978);
May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
names Associate Warden Olsen as a Defendant in the caption of
the FAC but alleges no claims against him or facts showing
Olsen's involvement in his claims. Williams either is
unable to cure his claims against Olsen or he has voluntarily
abandoned them, and these claims are DISMISSED with
42 U.S.C. § 1983
cannot maintain a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless
Defendants were acting under color of state law. See
Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend (October 22,
2018 Order), ECF No. 5, PageID #42 (citing Chudacoff v.
Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th
Cir. 2011), and Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. Inc., 457
U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). The FAC does not support an inference
that Defendants are state actors and claims alleged under
§ 1983 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
actions and § 1983 actions “are identical save for
the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a
federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v.
Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.1991). Bivens
provides a damages action against federal officers in their
individual capacity for their constitutional violations.
See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397. Bivens does
not encompass injunctive and declaratory relief that requires
official government action. Solida v. McKelvey, 820
F.3d 1090, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Higazy v.
Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2007) (“The
only remedy available in a Bivens action is an award
for monetary damages from defendants in their individual
capacities.”) and Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of
Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1231 (10th Cir. 2005)
(“[A] B ...