United States District Court, D. Hawaii
JEFFREY M. PARENT, #A6025710, Plaintiff,
HAWAII DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ACTION
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(E)(2) AND
A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Parent's first
amended complaint (FAC), brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 12. Parent names the Hawaii Department of
Public Safety (DPS), and Oahu Community Correctional Center
(OCCC) Officer Sgt. Pili, physician Dr. Moreano, and Warden
Francis Sequeira as Defendants in their individual and
following reasons, the FAC and this action are DISMISSED.
Parent's claims in Count I, relating to his mail to the
court, are DISMISSED with prejudice for Parent's failure
to state a colorable claim for relief. Parent's two new
claims, alleging the failure to protect him from assault by
another inmate (Count II), and denial of adequate dental care
thereafter (Count III), are DISMISSED without prejudice, as
improperly joined in this action.
commenced this action on December 20, 2018, when he signed
his initial pleading and in forma pauperis application and
gave them to prison authorities to mail to the
court. See ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, & 2
(signed and mailed Dec. 20, 2018). Although Parent styled his
pleading as an ex parte motion, the court liberally construed
it as a complaint pursuant to Rules 2 and 3 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, so that it could open a civil
action and address Parent's constitutional claims and
request for in forma pauperis status.
Complaint, Parent alleged that he was being denied sufficient
time in the prison law library. Parent later supplemented his
pleading with several motions, letters, and declarations,
each reiterating that he required additional time in the law
library and complaining that his mail to the court was not
being treated as confidential, privileged legal mail.
See ECF Nos. 5, 8-10.
February 12, 2019, the court dismissed the Complaint with
leave to amend for Parent's failure to state a colorable
claim for relief regarding the alleged denial of access to
the court or interference with his mail to the court. Order,
ECF No. 11. In granting leave to amend, the Order explicitly
stated, “Parent may not expand his claims beyond those
already alleged or add new claims, without an explanation
regarding how those new claims relate to the claims alleged
in the original Complaint.” Id., PageID #48.
The court also denied Parent's motions for injunctive
March 13, 2019, Parent filed the FAC, which expands his
claims well beyond those alleged in the original Complaint.
Parent realleges his claim that prison officials,
specifically Sgt. Pili, refuse to consider his mail to the
court as privileged, legal mail, which he alleges violates
his constitutional right to confidential communication with
the court (Count I). The FAC raises two new claims, first
alleging that prison officials failed to prevent Parent's
assault by another inmate on or about December 23, 2018
(Count II), and second, that Dr. Moreano denied him adequate
dental care to repair or replace a crown dislodged during
that assault (Count III).
seeks injunctive relief requiring DPS to treat correspondence
to the court as privileged, confidential legal mail, and
modify its procedures regarding the inmate housing and
classification policy to utilize inmates' medical reports
to segregate mentally ill inmates from the general
population. He also seeks $10, 000 in damages to repair his
court conducts a pre-Answer screening of all prisoners'
pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(a). Claims or complaints 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); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002,
1004 (9th Cir. 2010).
under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) involves the same
standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). 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).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. The “mere possibility of
misconduct” or an “unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation” falls short
of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at
678-79; 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 Parent 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).