United States District Court, D. Hawaii
KEONI R. JAENTSCH, #A1019833, Plaintiff,
PATTIE ANN K. PUHA, RAQUEL TAGUCHI, YUMI SUZUKI, Defendants,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
A. OTAKEUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Keoni R. Jaentsch is incarcerated at the Halawa
Correctional Facility (HCF) and is proceeding in forma
pauperis. See ECF No. 5. Jaentsch brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges Pattie Ann K.
Puha, Raquel Taguchi, and Yumi Suzuki (collectively,
Defendants) violated his civil rights and state criminal
statutes when Puha and Taguchi entered his property without
his permission between April 16-20, 2017, while he was
incarcerated at the Oahu Community Correctional Center
following reasons, Jaentsch's Complaint is DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), with leave granted to amend as
Court is required to conduct a pre-Answer screening in all
prisoner actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint
or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
for relief, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune
from suit. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (screening under §
1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004
(9th Cir. 2010) (screening under § 1915A(b)).
under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) involves the same
standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (screening under §
1915(e)(2)); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (screening under § 1915A).
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); 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. The
“mere possibility of misconduct” or an
“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me
accusation” does not meet this plausibility standard.
Id.; 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). Leave to amend must be granted if it appears the
plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint.
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. If a claim or complaint
cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal without leave to
amend is appropriate. Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of
L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
states that Puha, who is named in her individual capacity
only, entered his home several times between April 16 and 20,
2017, and “stole items without my permission or
consent” while he was incarcerated at OCCC. Compl., ECF
No. 1, PageID #5. He alleges this violated the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against illegal search and
seizure and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§
708-810, 708-812, 708-813, and 708-814.
Counts II and III, Jaentsch alleges that Puha allowed
Taguchi, a State of Hawaii Department of Human Services
(“DHS”) social worker, to enter his
“home/property” without his consent on April 19,
2017, while he was incarcerated at OCCC. Id., PageID
#2. Jaentsch alleges that Taguchi's DHS supervisor,
Suzuki, also authorized Taguchi to enter Jaentsch's
property. Jaentsch provides no further context to this claim.
He alleges Taguchi and Suzuki violated the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against illegal search and
seizure and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause. He further alleges Taguchi violated HRS §§
708-811 & 708-814.
raised identical claims against Puha, Taguchi, and Suzuki in
an earlier filed federal action, Jaentsch v. Puha, et
al., No. 1:18-cv-00073 HG-KSC (D. Haw.
2018). United States District Judge Helen Gillmor
dismissed that action on October 15, 2018, for Jaentsch's
failure to serve or respond to court orders. See
id., Orders, ECF Nos. 17, 18, 21. The only significant
difference between the pleadings in these two cases is that
in No. 1:18-cv-00073, Jaenstch identified Taguchi and Suzuki
as DHS Child Welfare Services officers; he omits that
information from the present Complaint.
seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his mental and
emotional injuries and any declaratory and injunctive relief
to which he is entitled.
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
a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury as
a result of a particular defendant's conduct and set
forth 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).