United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND (2) GRANTING IFP
A. Otake United States District Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff Chris Grindling's
(“Plaintiff”) (1) request to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP Request”), filed August 19, 2019.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the
Complaint and GRANTS the IFP Request.
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was “denied due
process false imprisonment conspiracy negligent infliction of
emotional distress abuse of process.” ECF No. 1 at 1.
As best the Court can discern, this action concerns events
dating back to 2006 and arises out of the execution of a
search warrant at Plaintiff's residence, the purported
planting of evidence, and state court Judge Raffetto's
refusal to allow Cheyanne Gomes to testify at trial.
Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff further alleges that he was
tortured, starved, placed in solitary confinement, and
subjected to repeated strip searches. Id. at 3.
Dismissal of the Complaint Under the In Forma Pauperis
Statute - 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset and dismiss
the complaint if it appears from the face of the proposed
complaint that the action: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Tripati v.
First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370
(9th Cir. 1987); Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152
F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998). When evaluating whether a
complaint fails to state a viable claim for screening
purposes, the Court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 8's pleading standard as it does in
the context of an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012).
8(a) requires “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(1)-(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible
pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state
the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones
v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
1984). “The Federal Rules require that averments
‘be simple, concise and direct.'” McHenry
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). FRCP 8
does not demand detailed factual allegations. However,
“it demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. “[A] complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007));
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)
(citations and quotations omitted). A claim is plausible
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
present case, even construing Plaintiff's Complaint
liberally, Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cty., 339 F.3d
920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d
750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court finds that dismissal is
appropriate because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Plaintiff complains about events
that occurred approximately 13 years ago, which would be
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Even those
allegations occurring more recently within the 13-year period
are likely time barred. The Court cannot ascertain whether
this action is timely due to Plaintiff's rambling and
conclusory allegations, which do not include specific dates
on which Defendants purportedly violated Plaintiff's
rights. Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided facts or law
explaining how Defendants are responsible for causing harm
with respect to each cause of action identified in the first
paragraph of his Complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff has not even
set forth the elements of his causes of action.
light of the Complaint's deficiencies and failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it is hereby
dismissed. Leave to amend should be granted even if no
request to amend the pleading was made, unless the Court
determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Tripati,
821 F.2d at 1370. Specifically, “pro se plaintiffs
proceeding in forma pauperis must also be given an
opportunity to amend their complaint unless it is
‘absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint could not be cured by amendment.'”
Tripati, 821 F.2d 1370 (quoting Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984));
Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (“If a
pro se complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim,
the court must ‘freely grant leave to amend' if it
is ‘at all possible' that the plaintiff could
correct pleading deficiencies by alleging different or new
the likelihood that Plaintiff's claims are time barred,
the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se
and that certain deficiencies could potentially be cured by
amendment. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint
without prejudice and grants Plaintiff leave to amend his
Complaint. Any amended complaint-which should be titled
“First Amended Complaint”- must be filed by
September 27, 2019 and must cure the
deficiencies identified above; that is, Plaintiff must
provide sufficient facts and law and should comply with all
rules governing pleadings. Plaintiff must include applicable
dates in any amended pleading. Failure to timely file an
amended pleading will result in the automatic dismissal of
submitted his IFP Request in a paragraph within his
Complaint. In the future, Plaintiff will be expected to
utilize the Court's form application.
Court may authorize the commencement or prosecution of any
suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an
affidavit that the person is unable to pay such fees. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “An affidavit in support of
an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the
affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the
necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees,
787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v.
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331,
339 (1948)). Absolute destitution is not required to obtain
benefits under the IFP statute, ...