United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND (2) DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Orighoye Dennis Iyonsi's
(“Plaintiff”) Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP Application”), filed August 12,
2019. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES
the Complaint and DENIES the IFP Application.
commenced this action on August 12, 2019 and filed an Amended
Complaint on August 15, 2019. Based on his caption and the
formatting and content of his pleadings, Plaintiff seems to
mistakenly believe that this Court is an appellate court.
Compl., ECF No. 1 (identifying the Court as “The State
of Hawai‘i of Appeals for the Federal District Circuit
Court”); ECF No. 5 (identifying the Court as “The
State of Hawai‘i Court of Appeals for the Federal
District Circuit Court”); Id. at 2 (including
a “Questions Presented” section). He also
identified his pleadings as “Brief for the United
States as Amicus Curiae.”
action arises from Plaintiffs May 19, 2019 arrest while
walking on the sidewalk in Ala Moana park. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff alleges that Honolulu Police Department Officers
Watanabe and Pugoyo approached him, asked him for
identification, then informed him that they were placing him
under arrest for violation of park laws. Id.
Plaintiff asserts that Revised Ordinance of Honolulu
(“ROH”) 10-1.2(a)(12) violates 18 U.S.C. §
245. Id. During this incident, Officer Watanabe and
three other unidentified officers (two males and one female)
allegedly punched Plaintiff in an effort to wrestle him to
the ground. Id. at 8. Plaintiff claims that he was
handcuffed and placed into a police vehicle without being
read his Miranda rights-in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 14141-and taken to a Honolulu jail, where he remained
in an isolation cell until May 22, 2019.
the Court can discern, Plaintiff asserts claims for false
arrest; excessive force/brutality; and discriminatory and
unlawful arrest while on a park sidewalk, in violation of his
right to participate in “lawful speech and peaceful
assembly with peaceful assembly stated as shall not mean the
aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to
commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or
against any real or personal property.” Id.
Plaintiff also alleges that there is a subversion of the
judicial and legislative process that amounts to a conspiracy
in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 241 and 242 because
Officer Watanabe acted as a clerk/judge in a court of law.
Id. at 9.
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 the 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 basis for jurisdiction is unclear and
the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
courts are presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction, and
the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject
matter jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). If the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, an action must be dismissed.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet his
burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction
exists. He alleges, in conclusory fashion, that the Officers,
none of whom are named as Defendants, violated certain
federal statutory provisions. However, the cited provisions
alleges that his arrest without a Miranda warning
violated 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Section 14141, which is now