Imamoto v. Breggin et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10 . Signed by JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA on 2/23/2012. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF S ERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I
WILLARD MAX IMAMOTO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. PETER BREGGIN, ET AL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CV. NO. 11-00781 DAE-KSC

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds this matter suitable for
disposition without a hearing. After considering the objection and reviewing the
record, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
(Doc. # 10.)
On December 23, 2011, Plaintiff Willard Max Imamoto (“Plaintiff”),
proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court against more than a dozen
defendants (Doc. # 1) and filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
(Doc. # 4.) On December 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang issued an
Order Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing
Complaint with Leave to Amend. (Doc. # 6.) Magistrate Judge Chang held that

Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“FRCP”) 8 and 10 and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(Doc. # 6.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Chang found that the 51-page, 131paragraph complaint was “rambling” and “unintelligible,” and that it “utterly
fail[ed] to provide a short plain statement of his claims for relief.” (Id. at 3–4.)
The Order also noted that it appeared Plaintiff initiated the action in part to
challenge a previous dismissal of one of his actions filed in this court and that the
dismissal was on appeal. (Id. at 5–6.) The Order stated that Plaintiff should not
initiate additional lawsuits to challenge the disposition of his previously filed
actions. (Id. at 6.)
Magistrate Judge Chang granted Plaintiff leave to amend and advised
Plaintiff that any amended complaint must clearly and plainly state the relief
sought and the factual basis demonstrating that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. (Id. at
6–7.) Magistrate Judge Chang also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to amend the
complaint and cure the pleading deficiencies would result in a dismissal of the
action. (Id. at 8.)
On January 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”). (“FAC,” Doc. # 8.) On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. # 9.)
2

On January 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Chang issued Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC with prejudice and deny the
application to proceed in forma pauperis. (“F&R,” Doc. # 10.) Magistrate Judge
Chang concluded that the FAC still failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10 and was
frivolous. Magistrate Judge Chang found that: “Even construing Plaintiff’s
Complaint liberally . . . it is unintelligible, incoherent, and has no arguable
substance of law or fact. Although Plaintiff has organized the FAC into
paragraphs, each paragraph is not limited to a single set of circumstances. Nor has
Plaintiff provided a short plain statement of his claims for relief. . . . It is difficult,
if not impossible, for the Court to identify any cognizable claims, and to the extent
the Court is able to extract anything meaningful from the FAC, Plaintiff has not
included the factual elements of any viable cause of action.” (Id. at 4–5 (internal
citations omitted).) Magistrate Judge Chang recognized the principle that pro se
litigants should be given an opportunity to amend their complaint, but found that
because Plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies in his original complaint, such
defects could not and would not be cured by amendment. (Id. at 7–8.)
Magistrate Judge Chang also noted Plaintiff’s “repeated filing of frivolous actions
in federal court” and determined that permitting leave to amend would be futile.
(Id. at 8.)
3

On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed an “Objection of Dismissal of
First Amended Complaint and Denial of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
and Plaintiffs [sic] Request For Leave To Appeal Final Judgment.” (Doc. # 11.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Any party may serve and file written objections to proposed findings
and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pursuant to Local Rule 74.2,
when a party objects to a magistrate judge’s dispositive order, findings, or
recommendations, the district court must make a de novo determination. A de
novo review means “the court must consider the matter anew, the same as if it had
not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered.” U.S.
Pac. Builders v. Mitsui Trust & Banking Co., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1024 (D. Haw.
1999) (citation omitted).
“The court may ‘accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.’ The court also may receive
further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.”
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Machs., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); Local Rule 74.2.

4

DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff does not make clear arguments in
his Objection, which appears to restate at least some of his assertions in his FAC.
After reviewing the record, including the FAC and Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court
agrees with Magistrate Judge Chang’s F&R.
The FAC fails to state a claim, fails to comply with Rule 8, and
appears to be frivolous and without merit. Although shorter than the original
Complaint, Plaintiff’s 30-page FAC—to which he attached two exhibits totaling 76
pages—remains incoherent, verbose, and disorganized. The FAC is still comprised
of rambling allegations that has no arguable substance of law or fact. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to discern any cognizable claims, and any mention of
possible causes of action lack coherent factual allegations or elements of a claim.
For example, the first numbered paragraph of the FAC states:
“ACTIONS” in Plaintiff’s Exhibit A Presented in this Civil Suit that is
Supported in Plaintiff’s DECLARATION and the Admissibility of That
Evidence through FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE gives rise to my
Claims for Relief in the Form of Scientific Misconduct of Fabrication that
the Publication of Deliberately false or misleading research, and/or the
actual making up of research data and the Intent of Publishing them
sometimes known as “drylabbing”, and Falsification through manipulation
of research data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result
....

5

(FAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiff’s exhibits and his declaration fail to illuminate to the Court
any cognizable legal claim. Further, Plaintiff’s prayer for relief in the FAC, which
is virtually identical to that in his original Complaint, is a verbose, run-on
paragraph that lists a host of claims, including:
Copyright infringements and future business endeavors, and Scientific
Misconduct of Fabrication that the Publication of Deliberately false or
misleading research, and/or the actual making up of research data and the
Intent of Publishing them, Falsification through manipulation of research
data and processes in order to reflect or prevent a certain result, and Bare
Assertions making entirely unsubstantiated claims which are Intentional or
Gross Negligence leading to this Fabrication of the Scientific Message or a
false credit or emphasis given to a scientist, or distortion of the research
process in other ways, and that these References included are to give
arguments the Appearance of Widespread Acceptance, but Are Fake, and/or
Do Not Support the Argument, and Extention [sic] to an unjustified
psychiatric commitment in outpatient care as applied to the 1st, 5th, 8th, and
14th Amendment Violations, Civil Rights Violation of 42 USC 1983,
Stigmata Plus, Equal Protections of the Law, Equal Protection Clause, Due
Process, Procedural and Substantive Due Process Claims THAT DENIED
ME LEGAL GROUNDS BY THE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT OF A MERITLESS LEGAL THEORY in the
amount of $1,500,000.00 per Defendant . . . .
(FAC at 29–30.)
Magistrate Judge Chang’s December 28, 2011 Order dismissing
Plaintiff’s original Complaint informed Plaintiff that the complaint failed to
comply with Rules 8 and 10 and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. The Order instructed: “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual

6

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 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.” (Doc. # 6, at 4 (internal quotations and citations omitted).) The Order
spelled out the requirements of Rule 10(b) and explained that a complaint
containing factual elements scattered throughout the complaint and not organized
into a “short and plain statement of the claim” would not suffice. (Id. at 5.) The
Order also advised Plaintiff that “[a]ny amended complaint must clearly and
plainly state the relief sought and the factual basis demonstrating that Plaintiff is
entitled to relief.” (Id. at 6–7.) Finally, Magistrate Judge Chang cautioned
Plaintiff that failure to cure the identified deficiencies would result in the dismissal
of the action. (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff has been instructed on the Complaint’s deficiencies and
failed to correct them despite an express warning that such failure would result in a
dismissal of the action. Moreover, the Court observes that Plaintiff has previously
filed frivolous actions in federal court, which have been dismissed. See, e.g.,
Imamoto v. Kahi Mohala Hosp., Civ. No. 09-00440 DAE-KSC, Order Denying
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Dismissing
Action With Prejudice, Doc. No. 4 (D. Haw. Oct. 19, 2009) (dismissing action with
7

prejudice on the basis that any amendment would be futile and noting that
Plaintiff’s “action appears to be both frivolous and without merit” and similar to
Plaintiff’s “prior meritless claims”); Imamoto v. Helping Hands of Hawaii, Civ.
No. 11-00551 ACK-RLP, 2011 WL 6012087 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2011) (finding
that amendment would be futile and dismissing amended complaint with prejudice
because Plaintiff failed to correct the original complaint’s deficiencies after being
given an opportunity to do so).
The Court therefore finds that further amendment is futile and agrees
with the F&R that dismissal of Plaintiff’s FAC should be dismissed with prejudice.
See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177–80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding a Rule
8(a) dismissal of a complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with
redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Neal v. Ekstrom, 55 Fed. App’x 865, 865
(9th Cir. 2003) ( “[Plaintiff] failed to provide a short, clear, and concise statement
of his claims, even after instructions from the district court. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [Plaintiff’s] amended
complaint with prejudice.”). See also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4
Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Further, ‘[t]he district court’s
discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has
previously amended the complaint.’” (citations omitted)).
8

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts in full as the
opinion of this Court the Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss First Amended
Complaint and Deny Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. # 10.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 23, 2012.

_____________________________
David Alan Ezra
United States District Judge

Imamoto v. Breggin, et al., Cv. No. 11-00781 DAE-KSC; ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENY APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

9