United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
Oki Mollway, United States District Judge.
the court is pro se Plaintiff Brian Aquino's first
amended prisoner civil rights complaint (“FAC”)
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Comp., ECF. No.
13. Aquino alleges that Defendants Hawaii Department of
Public Safety (“DPS”) Sheriffs Adrian Kanoa, Jeff
Piimauna, Dexter Kauahi, Michael Hirst, Deven English,
Christopher Lee, and Alexander Talavera violated the Fourth
Amendment when they allegedly arrested him without a warrant
or probable cause, with assistance from Defendant Cal
Ganutan, a Hawaiian Monarch Hotel Security guard
following reasons, the FAC is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(a-b) for failure to state
a colorable claim for relief. Aquino may file another amended
complaint on or before August 5, 2019, if he is able to cure
the deficiencies in his claims.
court is required to screen Aquino's amended Complaint
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) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2));
Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 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 pursuant to §
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” falls short of meeting 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 the 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).
filed the original Complaint on January 26, 2018. ECF No. 1.
The court screened that Complaint, dismissed it in part for
failure to state a claim, and stayed the action pursuant to
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), while his
ongoing state criminal proceedings regarding the arrest at
issue here were resolved. See Order, ECF No. 6.
Aquino was notified that, after his state proceedings were
concluded, he could file an amended complaint to address the
deficiencies in his original Complaint after his state
proceedings concluded, or voluntarily dismiss the action.
conclusion of his state criminal proceedings, Aquino moved to
reopen the case. Mot., ECF No. 10. The court granted the
Motion and directed Aquino to either file an amended
complaint or notify the court that he would voluntarily
dismiss. Order, ECF No. 11.
8, 2019, Aquino filed the FAC. ECF No. 13. Aquino cured
certain noted deficiencies in his original complaint,
omitting his girlfriend as a plaintiff, omitting the State
and the Hawaiian Monarch Hotel as defendants, identifying the
Doe Defendants, and naming Defendants in their individual
capacities only. In its entirety, the FAC's statement of
On May 3, 2017 @ 5:45 AM 7 members from assigned to the
sheriffs office, along with 1 member from the Hawaiian
Monarch Hotel Security illeagally [sic] raided & arrested
me in a privately owened [sic] room I was staying in. They
gained entry to the hotel room with aid from the Hotel
Security Gaurd [sic] & Hotel Management who provided CCTV
surveillance & a hotel master key card without proof of
any kind of warrant, to exact an illeagal [sic] arrest on me.
Therefor giving proof to my Fourth Amendment Complaint. As
they in their individual capacities acted under the color of
FAC, ECF No. 13, PageID #43-44. Aquino again seeks $150, 000
in damages from each Defendant and court fees.