United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND (2) DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Noe Kim Raquinio's
(“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP Application”), filed February 6,
2019. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES
the Complaint and DENIES the IFP Application.
U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983 action arises from a series
of traffic stops occurring on the island of Hawai‘i in
January 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Officer
Roberg, R. Pule, and C. Meleabz violated his Constitutional
right to travel and his Fourth Amendment rights, deprived him
of his Constitutional rights, and retaliated against him.
Compl. at 3-4. Plaintiff also identifies the Town of Kamuela;
Honoka‘a, Hilo; and HPD as Defendants in the caption of
his Complaint but does not list them as Defendants in Section
B of the Complaint. Id. at 2. The sole potential
reference to these entities is contained in the
“Relief” section, where Plaintiff states:
“I would like to add defendants and There [sic]
departments under a seperate [sic] claim for punitive damages
under section 42 U.S.C. 1983 [sic] as a separate case but
related in direct relation to my current Civil No.
18-000268SOM-RLP UNDER RELATED CASES.” Id. at
claims to have incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fines and to have suffered as follows: “Threats mental
anguish has left me distaught [sic] disturbed, paranoid,
unsafe, squirrels, fearful of my life and loved one [sic]
lives, finacially [sic] and physically disabled from previous
attacks from No.18-00268SOM-RLP, Loss of liberty, right, no
longer safe and surcure [sic] in my property.”
Dismissal of the Complaint Under the In Forma Pauperis
Statute - 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset and dismiss
the complaint if it appears from the face of the proposed
complaint that the action: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Tripati v.
First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370
(9th Cir. 1987); Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152
F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). When evaluating whether a
complaint fails to state a viable claim for screening
purposes, the Court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 8's pleading standard as it does in
the context of an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).
8(a) requires “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(1)-(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible
pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state
the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones
v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
1984). “The Federal Rules require that averments
‘be simple, concise and direct.'” McHenry
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). FRCP 8
does not demand detailed factual allegations. However,
“it demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. “[A] complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007));
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)
(citations and quotations omitted). A claim is plausible
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
present case, even construing Plaintiff's Complaint
liberally, Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cty., 339 F.3d
920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d
750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court finds that dismissal is
appropriate because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Section 1983 states:
Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Substantive rights are not created by
this provision; “rather it is the vehicle by whereby
plaintiffs can challenge actions by governmental
officials.” Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish,
382 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotations
omitted). “To state a claim under § 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.” Long v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d
1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
has not alleged sufficient facts to support his legal claims.
He recounts the traffic stops that form the basis of this
action but has not explained how Defendants' conduct
amounts to constitutional violations. It appears that a
portion of subsection C of the “Statement of
Claim” section of the Complaint was cut off. The Court
is unable to determine what additional facts might have been
included in the missing portion.
according to the “Relief” section, Plaintiff
wants this action, at least in part, to constitute a separate
claim for punitive damages related to Civil No. 18-00268
SOM-RLP. Under § 1983, entitlement to punitive damages
requires a “reckless or callous disregard for the
plaintiff's rights, as well as intentional violations of
federal law. ” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51
(1983). Punitive damages are not available against a
municipality under § 1983 but are available against an
official in his individual capacity. Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.13 (1985); Newport v.
Facts Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981). A