Chun v. Simpson et al

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION re 35 Motion for TRO re 35 Motion for Permanent Injunction. Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/01/2015. -- Plaint iff's Motion for Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction, filed October 1, 2015, is HEREBY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If necessary, Plaintiff may file a new motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction after he files his second amended complaint. This Court will consider the merits of the new motion if his second amended complaint survives the screening process (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered t o 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 HAWAII
CURTIS PAUL CHUN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
VICTORIA SIMPSON, ET AL.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 15-00102 LEK-RLP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Curtis Chun’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Restraining Order and Permanent
Injunction (“Motion”), filed on October 1, 2015.

[Dkt. no. 35.]

The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice
of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i
(“Local Rules”).

After careful consideration of the Motion and

the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff’s Motion is HEREBY DENIED
for the reasons set forth below.
DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document that this
Court construed as his Complaint.

The defendants were his

neighbors, Defendants Victoria Simpson, Veronica Simpson,
Valerie Simpson, Romeo Simpson, and an unnamed live-in boyfriend
(collectively “Defendants”).

On May 5, 2015, this Court issued

an order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend (“5/5/15

Order”).

[Dkt. no. 9.]
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint against

Defendants on September 14, 2015.

[Dkt. no. 24.]

On

September 28, 2015, this Court issued an order dismissing the
Amended Complaint with leave to amend (“9/28/15 Order”).
no. 32.]

[Dkt.

Plaintiff has until November 30, 2015 to file a second

amended complaint that addresses the issues identified in the
9/28/15 Order.
First, this Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s current
Motion because there is no complaint before this Court at this
time.

When a plaintiff seeks either a temporary restraining

order or a preliminary injunction, the applicable standards
require this Court to evaluate the merits of the plaintiff’s
claims.

See, e.g., Hunger v. Univ. of Hawai`i, 927 F. Supp. 2d

1007, 1015 (D. Hawai`i 2013) (describing the applicable
standards).

This Court cannot evaluate the merits of the instant

case until Plaintiff files his second amended complaint.
Second, even if this Court liberally construed
Plaintiff’s Motion as a pleading to be filed in a new case, this
Court would not have jurisdiction over the new case.

This Court

would not have diversity jurisdiction because - based on
Plaintiff’s allegations - he, the Simpsons, and the unnamed
boyfriend who allegedly assaulted him are all citizens of
Hawai`i.

See 5/5/15 Order at 9 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).

2

Further, this Court would not have federal question jurisdiction
because Plaintiff appears to be alleging an assault claim, which
is a state law claim.

See id. at 8-9 (citing State Farm & Cas.

Co. v. Hawaii Hope Mission Baptist Church, Civ. No. 12–00687
JMS–KSC, 2014 WL 1045872, at *7 (D. Hawai`i Mar. 14, 2014)).
This Court therefore cannot act upon Plaintiff’s Motion.
This Court is very concerned about the events that
Plaintiff has described, and it recognizes that Plaintiff is
afraid that the violence between him and Defendants will
escalate.

If Plaintiff believes that he is in danger, he should

contact law enforcement.

Further, because this Court cannot

consider Plaintiff’s request for a restraining order and/or
injunction at this time, he may wish to seek such relief through
the corresponding processes in state court.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction, filed October 1,
2015, is HEREBY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

If necessary,

Plaintiff may file a new motion for a temporary restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction after he files his second amended
complaint.

This Court will consider the merits of the new motion

if his second amended complaint survives the screening process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, October 1, 2015.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

CURTIS PAUL CHUN VS. VICTORIA SIMPSON, ET AL; CIVIL 15-00102 LEKRLP; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

4