United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM W. RAMSEY, JR., Plaintiff,
PARK LANE MANAGEMENT, ET AL., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Richard L. Puglisi, United States Magistrate Judge.
February 14, 2019, this Court issued a Findings and
Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment
of Counsel and to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
With Leave to Amend. ECF No. 8. The district court adopted
the Findings and Recommendation on March 5, 2019. ECF NO. 10.
After adopting the Findings and Recommendation, the district
court deemed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint as
having been filed on March 5, 2019. ECF No. 11. After careful
consideration of the Second Amended Complaint, the Court
FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint be DISMISSED.
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, proceeding pro
se, alleges that Park Lane Management and Security Team
violated his constitutional rights. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff
alleges that he was at a real estate open house at a unit at
Park Lane when three Park Lane security officers told him to
leave the premises and escorted him off property because
Plaintiff was a registered sex offender. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff alleges that the Security Team violated his
constitutional rights by using unnecessary force and foul
language when they kicked him off the property. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Park Lane Management violated his
constitutional rights by discriminating against him, defaming
his character, and slandering him. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff seeks $24 million in damages. Id. at 5.
court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule
8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hearns v.
San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131
(9th Cir. 2008). Rule 8 requires that a complaint include
“a short plain statement of the claim” and that
each allegation “be simple, concise, and direct.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). A complaint that is so
confusing that its “‘true substance, if any, is
well disguised'” may be dismissed sua
sponte for failure to satisfy Rule 8. Hearns,
530 F.3d at 1131 (quoting Gillibeau v. City of
Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)). Because
Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this action, the Court
liberally construes the pleadings. See Bernhardt v. L.A.
Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
and concludes that, even liberally construed, the Second
Amended Complaint fails to state a federal claim. Plaintiff
states that he is asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 12 at 4. As the Court explained in its prior
Findings and Recommendation, “Section 1983 imposes two
essential proof requirements upon a claimant: 1) that a
person acting under color of state law committed the conduct
at issue, and 2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of
some right, privilege or immunity protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States.” Leer v.
Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 632-33 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to meet the
first requirement. Specifically, Plaintiff does not plausibly
allege that Defendants acted under color of state law. In his
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that “[t]he
[defendants] acting under color of state law committed the
conducted, issue and that the conduct deprived the claimant
of some right privilege or immunity.” ECF No. 12 at 4.
This conclusory statement is not sufficient to plausibly
allege that the named Defendants acted under the authority of
state law. Section 1983 generally applies to government
officials and employees. The named Defendants here are not
government officials or government employees, but appear to
be private citizens. A private person may act under
“color of law” for purposes of Section 1983 when
he exercises power “possessed by virtue of state law
and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with
the authority of state law.” West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff
does not allege any facts to show that Defendants were
exercising power possessed by virtue of state law or were
acting under the authority of state law. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim under Section 1983.
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint liberally, it
appears that Plaintiff may be able to assert Hawaii state law
claims against the named Defendants. Based on the allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff
and Defendants are citizens of Hawaii. This Court does not
have jurisdiction over state law claims between citizens of
the same state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
(providing that federal district courts have jurisdiction
over actions between “citizens of different
States”). Because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens
of Hawaii, this Court does not have jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's potential claims for violation of Hawaii
state law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint must be dismissed.
accordance with the foregoing, the Court FINDS that no
amendment can cure the defects in Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint and RECOMMENDS that the Second Amended
Complaint be DISMISSED. Further, given Plaintiff's pro se
status, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Clerk's Office
refund to Plaintiff the $400 filing fee paid on February 6,
SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.