United States District Court, D. Hawaii
COREY K. LEONG, #A4014453, Plaintiff,
MAUI CTY. COMM. CORR., Defendants,
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
A. Otake United States District Judge
the Court is pro se Plaintiff Corey K. Leong's first
amended prisoner civil rights Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 1.
Leong alleges that the Hawaii “Department of Public
Safety (Maui Division)” (“DPS”), violated
his civil rights between February 15 and June 15, 2018, by
housing him in a two-man cell with three other prisoners at
the Maui Community Correctional Center (MCCC).
again fails to name any proper Defendant to this suit and
otherwise fails to state a colorable claim for relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The FAC is DISMISSED with leave to
amend, if possible, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) & 1915A(a-b).
is proceeding in forma pauperis and is a prisoner, therefore
the Court screens the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). 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)).
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; Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609
F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of
Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009).
“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 “demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). The
“mere possibility of misconduct” is insufficient
to 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, 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 § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that
the defendant (1) acted under color of state law and (2)
deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal
law. Long v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178,
1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Marsh v. Cty. of San
Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing
“color of state law”). A person deprives another
of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of
§ 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act,
participates in another's affirmative act, or omits to
perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes
the deprivation of which complaint is made.'”
Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479
F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v.
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
The FAC's Claims
alleges that DPS or MCCC officials violated his
constitutional rights by housing him in an overcrowded cell
at MCCC. FAC, ECF No. 9, PageID #54.
I was in MCCC Jail and was forced to sleep on the ground (no
cot) in an overcrowded situation (4 persons in a 2 man cell),
and next to a toilet. I was stepped over, tripped on and
urine-ated [sic] on multiple times. Also I have a severe eye
condition and sleeping on the ground increased ...