United States District Court, D. Hawaii
JEFFREY M. PARENT, #A6025710, Plaintiff,
STATE OF HAWAII, DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OCCC, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTION FOR
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Parent's
prisoner civil rights Complaint, Motion for Order Showing
Need for Unrestricted Access to Courts; and Expansion for Law
Library Sessions (Motion for Injunction), and Ex Parte
Application Under Fed.R.Civ.P. LR 7.2(b)(d) (Ex Parte
Application). See ECF Nos. 1, 4, 8. Parent seeks
injunctive relief requiring the Hawaii Department of Public
Safety (DPS) and the Oahu Community Correctional Center
(OCCC) to schedule him for twelve to sixteen hours of law
library sessions per week, and ensure that his legal mail is
uncensored and treated as privileged correspondence.
following reasons, Parent's Complaint is DISMISSED with
leave to amend. Parent's Motion for Injunction and Ex
Parte Application are DENIED.
commenced this action on December 26, 2018, by filing a
document titled “Ex Parte Motion” and
“Civil Complaint, ” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 1. As noted, the Complaint seeks an order
compelling prison officials to provide Parent with at least
twelve to sixteen hours per week in the law library and
provide him unrestricted postage, paper, pens, envelopes, and
copies for his legal documents. Parent says he was
“advised that he must file a petition to invoke the
courts recognition of Pro Se status, In Forma Paupris [sic]
status.” Id., PageID #3. Parent suggests that,
without these accommodations, he is or will be denied full
access to the courts. Although the court granted Parent in
forma pauperis status, it has not yet screened his Complaint
as required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
January 23, 2019, Parent filed the Motion for Injunction
requesting the same relief as he seeks in his Complaint.
Parent states that he is scheduled for law library sessions
“at the standard set time of 3 hours per sessions,
” but complains that he is sometimes brought to the
library thirty minutes late and removed fifteen minutes
early. See Pl. Dec., ECF No. 5. Parent also
complains that he cannot comply with the Local Rules for the
District of Hawaii because he is not provided white, opaque
paper and manila envelopes.
January 30, 2019, Parent filed his Ex Parte Application,
requesting the same relief as his Complaint and Motion for
Injunction. In this filing, however, Parent states that he is
currently receiving “approx. 4-5 hours only” in
the prison law library. Parent also attaches two envelopes to
his Ex Parte Application, purportedly showing that the prison
does not consider mail directed to the court and other
government agencies, including the Hawaii Attorney General,
Hawaii Paroling Authority, and the Office of the Ombudsman,
as privileged. See Exs., ECF Nos. 8-3, 8-4.
court must conduct a pre-Answer screening of all
prisoners' pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). Claims or complaints 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); Rhodes v.
Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010).
under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) involves the same
standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
F.3d 1113, 1121 (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).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. The “mere possibility of
misconduct” or an “unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation” falls short
of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at
678-79; 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 Parent can correct the defects in the complaint,
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130, but 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).
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). A plaintiff must also 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 Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978); Rizzo v.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
Right of ...