Lorenzo et al v. State of Hawaii et al

Filing 8

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
AMERICA; ,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII; GOVERNOR
)
NEIL ABERCROMBIE; and JOHN)
JANE DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00568 SOM/KSC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

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
Hawaii.

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
exist.
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.

Because

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.

28 U.S.C.

§ 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
Kamehameha I.

See In re Heirs of Kamehameha Paiea, Civ. No. 09-

2

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
diversity jurisdiction.

See id., ECF Nos. 10 and 11.

Lorenzo’s

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.

See C.E.

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.”
(citation omitted)).

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
States).

That leaves Lorenzo with the possibility that, as a

nonattorney plaintiff, he somehow stands in the shoes of the
United States.

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.

As

determined in Lorenzo’s previously filed action, which asked the
court to recognize that he is the rightful heir to the throne of

3

Kamehameha I, such a claim does not involve the court’s diversity
jurisdiction and does not present a federal question.

The

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
Hawaiian islands.

Even assuming the court has the power to

declare the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 to have

4

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
Lorenzo.

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.

Any

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

5

the applicable filing fee or submission of a new Application will
result in the automatic dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED:

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

6