United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. Otake United States District Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff Chris Grindling’s
(“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”), filed September 5, 2019. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the FAC with leave to
commenced this action on August 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019,
the Court issued an Order (1) Dismissing Complaint and (2)
Granting IFP Request. ECF No. 4. The Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s Complaint because it failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. at 3.
Based on Plaintiff’s limited allegations about events
occurring 13 years ago, the Court could not ascertain whether
his claims are timely. Id. at 3-4. In addition,
Plaintiff failed to provide facts or law explaining how
Defendants are responsible for causing the alleged
violations. Id. at 4. The Court granted Plaintiff
until September 27, 2019 to file an amended complaint.
Court must screen the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d
845, 845 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that §
1915(e)(2)(B)’s screening requirements apply to
non-prisoners proceeding or seeking to proceed IFP). 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. Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en
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 a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
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.
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).
present case, even construing Plaintiff’s FAC
liberally, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate
because Plaintiff still fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Plaintiff continues to complain about
events that occurred approximately 13 years ago. ECF No. 5 at
1-2. He claims that the conviction that is the subject of
this action was overturned in July 2016 and that in August
2019, the prosecutors declined to re-prosecute him and Judge
Cahill dismissed charges against him. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff also asserts, in conclusory fashion, that his
claims are timely because the two-year statute of limitations
started on the date his case was dismissed. Id.
While the addition of factual information provides some
clarity, the allegations are still deficient because they do
not explain what state case is at issue and how his
conviction was overturned.
before, 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 FAC. Indeed, most of his allegations are identical to
those presented in the Complaint. The added content is
rambling and incoherent, in violation of FRCP 8, and
Plaintiff’s failure to use proper capitalization or
punctuation further impairs the Court’s ability to
identify and comprehend his allegations.
the FAC’s deficiencies and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, it is hereby dismissed.
Because it is still possible that Plaintiff could cure these
deficiencies, he is granted leave to amend. Plaintiff is
cautioned that this is his final opportunity to amend his
amended complaint-which should be titled “Second
Amended Complaint”-must be filed by October 18,
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,
including but not limited to FRCP 8(a)(2)’s requirement
that a pleading include “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and FRCP 10(b)’s
requirement that a plaintiff “must state [his] claims .
. . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). ...