United States District Court, D. Hawaii
WILLIAM K. OYADOMARI, Plaintiff,
SUTHERLAND-CHOY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 10, 2019, Plaintiff William K. Oyadomari
(“Plaintiff”), who is self-represented and not
incarcerated, filed a civil Complaint, ECF No. 1, against
“Sutherland-Choy” and the “Honolulu
Police.” On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed an
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“Application”). ECF No. 4. Upon
consideration of the Application and the financial
information provided in support, the Court finds that
Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information regarding
his financial status, and therefore the Application is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Moreover, upon screening the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for the following
reasons, the Court concludes the Complaint fails to state a
claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED
indicates in his Application that he “receive[s]
[$]744.00 monthly, ” which is composed of “[r]ent
payments, interest, or dividends” and
“[d]isability, or worker's compensation payments,
” and that his regularly monthly expenses total
$540.00. App. at 1-2. Although Plaintiff was directed in the
Application to “describe . . . each source of
money and state the amount that [he] received and what [he]
expect[s] to receive in the future, ” Plaintiff did not
describe each source but instead only generally stated,
“I receive 744.00 monthly.” App. at 1 (emphasis
added). Plaintiff also asserts that he does not have any
money in cash or in a checking or savings account, does not
own anything of value, nor does he have any debts or
financial obligations. See App at 2.
a claim of poverty is made under section 1915 ‘it is
proper and indeed essential for the supporting
affidavits to state the facts as to affiant's poverty
with some particularity, definiteness and
certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647
F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v.
United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960))
(emphasis added). Because Plaintiff did not fully complete
the Application, it is unclear to the Court how Plaintiff
earns “[r]ent payments, interest, or dividends”
when he does not own anything of value nor have any money in
a checking or savings account. The Court is therefore unable
to ascertain whether Plaintiff is a pauper and cannot afford
to prepay the costs of initiating this action. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
upon screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), the Court concludes the Complaint fails to
state a claim. A liberal construction of Plaintiff's
Complaint, see Eldredge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132,
1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has instructed
federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful
pleading' of pro se litigants.'” (citation
omitted)), demonstrates that Plaintiff asserts some kind of
violation of medical privacy laws such as
HIPAA. Plaintiff alleges: (1) he was in Dr.
Sutherland-Choy's office when a male undercover H.P.D.
officer posed as a student and “spoke” with
Plaintiff and “ask[ed]” Plaintiff
“questions about [his] once a month Abilify
shot”; (2) this violated Plaintiff's rights because
“police don't have legal law/s to be in a doctors
[sic] office . . . due to medical protection act/s.”
Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5.
“[t]here is no express or implied private cause of
action contained in HIPAA.” Robinson v. Tripler
Army Med. Ctr., CIV. NO. 04-00672 HG-KSC, 2005 WL
8158959 (D. Haw. 2005) (citing Logan v. Dep't of
Veterans Affairs, 357 F.Supp.2d 149, 155 (D.D.C. 2004)
(other citation omitted). Again construing Plaintiff's
Complaint liberally, it thus appears that Plaintiff asserts a
cause of action under state law, although he does not
identify what specific law was violated, and how and when it
was violated. But even if Plaintiff asserted a valid state
law claim, the Complaint is devoid of any explanation as to
why the Court may exercise jurisdiction over it. Federal
district courts have original jurisdiction over cases where
the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and where the matter in controversy is
between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). Complete diversity of citizenship requires
that each of the plaintiffs be a citizen of a different state
than each of the defendants. See Williams v. United
Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2007)
(citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.,
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005)); Morris v. Princess
Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).
Here, the Complaint does not assert the amount in
controversy, but merely states that Plaintiff seeks “a
lumpsum settlement.” Compl. at 2. Further, Plaintiff
fails to allege his citizenship or that of the
Court observes that Plaintiff may be asserting a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim for an unlawful search against the Honolulu
Police Department because he states: “no [one] notified
me of police nor showed me a court order on police[']s
behalf to be in Hale-o-ulu property (school).” Compl.
¶ 9. To the extent Plaintiff may bring a § 1983
claim against the City and County of Honolulu, which would be
the proper municipal defendant,  Plaintiff does not indicate
what Hale-o-lulu School is, the connection between him and
the school, or any other specific allegations, such as when
the alleged incidents occurred.
of these reasons, Plaintiff fails to comply with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, that
complaints must include a “short and plain statement of
the claim, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and contain
allegations that are “simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The Ninth Circuit has
explained why requiring concise and direct allegations in a
complaint is so important, and the troubles that befall
litigants and courts if claims proceed on inadequately pled
Prolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs
filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and
judges. As a practical matter, the judge and opposing
counsel, in order to perform their responsibilities, cannot
use a complaint such as the one plaintiffs filed, and must
prepare outlines to determine who is being sued for what.
Defendants are then put at risk that their outline differs
from the judge's, that plaintiffs will surprise them with
something new at trial which they reasonably did not
understand to be in the case at all, and that res judicata
effects of settlement or judgment will be different from what
they reasonably expected.
The judge wastes half a day in chambers preparing the
“short and plain statement” which Rule 8
obligated plaintiffs to submit. He [or she] then must manage
the litigation without knowing what claims are made against
whom. This leads to discovery disputes and lengthy trials,
prejudicing litigants in other case[s] who follow the rules,
as well as defendants in the case in which the prolix
pleading is filed.
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.
on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and
the Complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Together with payment of the civil filing fee or an amended
and completed Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint naming the correct defendants and
addressing the foregoing deficiencies no later than
January 27, 2020. Failure to do so will
result in an AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL of this action.