United States District Court, D. Hawaii
HARDY K. AH PUCK, Plaintiff,
TRACY JONES, MAUI POLICE DEP'T, JUDGE CORDOZA, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING ALL PENDING
Gillmor United States District Judge
the Court is pro se Plaintiff Hardy K. Ah Puck's civil
rights Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and request
for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 1-3. Plaintiff is a
recently released prisoner who seeks damages for his allegedly
unconstitutional conviction in the Hawaii Circuit Court of
the Second Circuit in State v. Ah Puck,
2CPC-17-0000884 (Haw. 2d Cir. 2017) . See Compl., ECF No.
1, PagelD #2.
alleges that unidentified Maui County Police Officers
entrapped him during his arrest, Maui County Deputy
Prosecutor Tracy Jones engaged in prosecutorial misconduct
during his trial, and Hawaii Second Circuit Judge Joseph
Cordoza violated his constitutional rights by failing to
declare a mistrial in 2CPC-17-0000884. Plaintiff seeks
following reasons, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice, but without leave granted to amend, and all
pending motions are DENIED.
court is required to screen Plaintiff's claims against
government officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 Rhodes v.
Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010)
(discussing § 1915A(b)). Section 1915 screening involves
the same standard of review as that under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). 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) .
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 v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc). 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) .
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a state
prisoner sought damages based on the allegedly unlawful
conduct of the officials he held responsible for his
conviction. The Supreme Court held that:
to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
512 U.S. at 486-87. A "district court must consider
whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence
has already been invalidated." Id. at 487.
convictions in 2CPC-17-0000884 and 2CPC-18-000077 have not
been reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question.
They are currently proceeding on appeal with the Intermediate
Court of Appeals. Because Plaintiff's claims that
Defendants acted illegally during his arrest and trial, if
successful, would call these convictions into question, these
claims are barred by Heck and are DISMISSED without
prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa
Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (en
Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as barred by the
Heck v. ...