Lorenzo et al v. State of Hawaii et al
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS re 1 ; 4 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/6/13. "Accordingly, no later than November 29, 2013, Lorenzo may file an Amended Complaint that asserts claims over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction." " If Lorenzo chooses to file an Amended Complaint, he must pay the applicable filing fee or submit another Application. Failure to timely file a n Amended Complaint along with payment of the applicable filing fee or submission of a new Application will result in the automatic dismissal of this action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants r egistered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Windyceslau D. Lorenzo shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on November 7, 2013. A copy of the court's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs shall be included in the mailing to Mr. Lorenzo.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
WINDYCESLAU D. LORENZO (who
calls himself “KAMEHAMEHA
VI”); and UNITED STATES OF
STATE OF HAWAII; GOVERNOR
NEIL ABERCROMBIE; and JOHN)
JANE DOES 1-50,
CIVIL NO. 13-00568 SOM/KSC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Windyceslau D. Lorenzo,
who calls himself “Kamehameha VI,” proceeding pro se, filed the
Complaint in this matter on behalf of himself and purportedly on
behalf of the United States of America.
Lorenzo claims to be “a
lawful and legitimate heir to the lineal Kamehameha bloodline.”
See ECF No. 1, PageID # 1.
Lorenzo demands his “birthright be
protected as owner and successor to all the allodium lands of the
Archipelago of Hawaii,” including all 132 islands making up
Id., PageID # 8.
Lorenzo alleges that the State of
Hawaii is an illegal entity because it derives from an illegal
overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
He therefore “seeks
significant retraction of the Legal Status of the State of
Hawaii” and a declaration that the State of Hawaii does not
Concurrent with the filing of the Complaint, Lorenzo
filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”).
See ECF No. 4.
the Complaint fails to allege a viable claim, the Complaint is
dismissed, rendering the Application moot.
Any court of the United States may authorize the
commencement of a suit, without payment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit demonstrating he
or she is unable to pay such costs or give such security.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Although the Application demonstrates that
Lorenzo cannot afford to prepay the costs of initiating this
action, this court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at
the outset if it appears from the facts of the Complaint that the
action is frivolous, that the action fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
§ 1915(e)(2); see also Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821
F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987).
Lorenzo’s Complaint fails to
assert a viable claim over which this court has jurisdiction.
Lorenzo previously filed an action asking this court to
declare that he is a lineal descendant and heir of King
See In re Heirs of Kamehameha Paiea, Civ. No. 09-
00113 HG/BMK, Mar. 19, 2009.
That case was dismissed based on a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lorenzo’s claim did
not involve a federal question and Lorenzo was not asserting
See id., ECF Nos. 10 and 11.
present Complaint fails for the same reason.
To the extent Lorenzo purports to be suing on behalf of
the United States of America, he may not do so.
First, he is not
an attorney licensed to practice law in this court.
Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.
1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in
his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. . . . He has
no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”
Second, even if he were an attorney, he
would need some authority permitting him to represent the United
States (e.g., he could be an attorney employed by the United
That leaves Lorenzo with the possibility that, as a
nonattorney plaintiff, he somehow stands in the shoes of the
He cites no statute or other authority allowing
him to do that.
To the extent Lorenzo seeks to have this court, in
essence, recognize him as King and owner of 132 Hawaiian islands,
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
determined in Lorenzo’s previously filed action, which asked the
court to recognize that he is the rightful heir to the throne of
Kamehameha I, such a claim does not involve the court’s diversity
jurisdiction and does not present a federal question.
Complaint’s reference to a Treaty of 1849 does not provide the
court with federal question jurisdiction over Lorenzo’s claims,
as that treaty allegedly states only that “There shall be
perpetual peace and amity between the United States and the King
of the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his successors.”
Even if the court had the power to recognize Lorenzo as
King of Hawaii, Lorenzo would lack standing to assert the
claim(s) he brings.
To have such standing, Lorenzo must at least
plausibly allege that: 1) he suffered a "concrete and
particularized" and "actual or imminent" (as opposed to
"conjectural or hypothetical") injury-in-fact; 2) his injury is
causally connected to the conduct complained of; and 3) it is
likely (not merely speculative) that its injury will be
"redressed by a favorable decision."
Ass’n of Public Agency
Customers v. Bonneville Power Admin., -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 5779519
(9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2013); Townley v. Miller, 772 F.3d 1128, 1133
(9th Cir. 2013).
Nothing in Lorenzo’s papers suggests that this
court can redress any alleged injury to him.
Lorenzo seeks a
declaration that the State of Hawaii is illegal and does not
exist and that, as a result, he, as King, is the owner of all the
Even assuming the court has the power to
declare the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 to have
been illegal, the court lacks the power to declare the State of
Hawaii a nullity and to give ownership of all land in Hawaii to
The court notes, in any event, that such claims clearly
raise statute of limitations concerns and political questions,
although this court need not rely on any potential defense in
dismissing the present Complaint.
Having screened the Complaint under § 1915, the court
dismisses the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and denies the Application as moot.
Although the court clearly
lacks the power to declare Lorenzo King or to award him 132
Hawaiian islands, there may be some viable related claim that
Lorenzo could assert.
Accordingly, no later than November 29,
2013, Lorenzo may file an Amended Complaint that asserts claims
over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
Amended Complaint must be complete in itself.
That is, it may
not incorporate by reference the original Complaint.
Additionally, in any Amended Complaint, Lorenzo may not seek to
represent the interests of anyone other than himself, such as the
United States of America or any other potential heir.
If Lorenzo chooses to file an Amended Complaint, he
must pay the applicable filing fee or submit another Application.
Failure to timely file an Amended Complaint along with payment of
the applicable filing fee or submission of a new Application will
result in the automatic dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Honolulu, Hawaii, November 6, 2013.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
Lorenzo v. State of Hawaii, et al., Civil No. 13-00568 SOM-KSC; ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?