Cabaluna et al v. Human Health Service, Secretary Of et al
ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED COMPLAINT FILED ON MAY 11, 2015 filed by T. T., Mary Gold Cabaluna This Court ORDERS that any amended complaint in this case must be filed by June 26, 2015. This Court emphasizes that T.T. may only file an amended complaint through counsel. This Court CAUTIONS Cabaluna and T.T. that, if they fail to file an amended complaint by June 26, 2015, this Court will issue an order dismissing this case with prejudice and directing the Clerks Office to close the case. This Court also CAUTIONS Cabaluna that, if she files an amended complaint which includes claims that are duplicative of claims in CV 14-480, or claims which this Court cannot consider under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, those claim s will be dismissed with prejudice. (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants 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 May 27, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MARY GOLD CABALUNA, T.T.,
SECRETARY OF HUMAN HEALTH
SERVICE, ET AL.,
CV 15-00112 LEK-RLP
ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED COMPLAINT FILED ON MAY 11, 2015
On April 2, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Mary Gold Cabaluna
(“Cabaluna”) filed a “Letter of Complaint” (“Complaint”) on
behalf of her minor daughter, T.T.
On April 30, 2015, this Court
issued its Order Dismissing Complaint and Denying Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
[Dkt. no. 5.]
In the 4/30/15 Order, this
Court concluded that, because there is no indication that
Cabaluna is an attorney licensed to practice in this district,
she cannot bring claims pro se on behalf of T.T.
therefore dismissed the Complaint, but gave T.T. leave to file an
amended complaint through a licensed attorney.
[Id. at 6-7.]
On May 11, 2015, Cabaluna filed a document titled
“Amended Complaint,” which this Court construes as her “Proposed
Complaint,” on behalf of herself and T.T.
[Dkt. no. 13.]
Cabaluna also submitted a letter dated May 11, 2015, which this
Court has construed as an Errata to the Proposed Complaint.
[Errata, filed 5/14/15 (dkt. no. 16); EO, filed 5/19/15 (dkt. no.
15) (construing letter as an errata).]
As this Court ruled in the 4/30/15 Order, Cabaluna
cannot litigate claims on behalf of T.T.
Further, while Cabaluna
can assert her own claims pro se, the Proposed Complaint fails to
state any plausible claims for relief.
The Court therefore
DENIES Cabaluna leave to file the Proposed Complaint and HEREBY
STRIKES it from the docket.
As noted in the 4/30/15 Order, Cabaluna has another
case pending in this district court, Cabaluna v. Vanderford, et
al., CV 14-00480 LEK-RLP (“CV 14-480”).
The remaining claims in
CV 14-480 are: Cabaluna’s claim pursuant to the Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., against the State of Hawai`i
(“the State”) and “Federal housing Mayor rights” (“Mayor
Wright”); and her harassment claim against Vincent Vanderford.
See, e.g., CV 14-480, Court Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Letter
Dated April 7, 2015, filed 4/10/15 (dkt. no. 39), at 1.
operative pleading in CV 14-480 is the Amended Complaint, which
Cabaluna filed on November 7, 2014 [dkt. nos. 5, 5-1].
4/30/14 Order at 1-2.
The 4/30/15 Order also noted that Cabaluna apparently
filed the instant case on behalf of T.T. after the magistrate
judge denied Cabaluna leave to add T.T. as a plaintiff in CV 14-
Further, the factual allegations in the original Complaint
were similar to the factual allegations that are pending, or were
previously raised, in CV 14-480.
See id. at 3.
The Proposed Complaint consists of: 1) a caption page;
2) three letters - one of which is corrected by the Errata - in
which Cabaluna recounts the incidents that are the basis of the
Proposed Complaint; and 3) various supporting documents regarding
The caption page suggests that both Cabaluna
and T.T. are the plaintiffs, but it does not identify any
The letters and the supporting documents refer to
various individuals and entities, but do not clearly identify any
of those as a defendant in this case.
Like the original Complaint in this case, the Proposed
Complaint includes factual allegations that are similar to the
factual allegations that are pending, or were previously raised
and rejected, in CV 14-480.
These include: Vanderford and his
family harassed Cabaluna since 2010; Cabaluna experienced other
problems at Mayor Wright; Cabaluna and T.T. suffer various health
problems as a result of being subjected to unknown medical
experiments; Queen’s Medical Center failed to render appropriate
care when they sought treatment for those health problems; and
T.T. was subjected to unauthorized medical treatment while at
In addition, Cabaluna raises other issues, including:
concerns about the Affordable Care Act; a state court proceeding
in which she sought (but was denied) a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”) against Governor David Ige and Mayor Kirk Caldwell
because they failed to address complaints that she has raised
since 2012; concerns about genetic research at Emory University;
and an acknowledgment of a school policy regarding T.T.’s use of
digital devices that Cabaluna apparently refused to sign.
Cabaluna as a Party
The Proposed Complaint indicates that Cabaluna wishes
to be added as a plaintiff in this case.
That request is
GRANTED, and this Court notes that Cabaluna has a statutory right
to represent herself pro se.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
Claims in the Proposed Complaint
This Court must liberally construe Cabaluna’s pleadings
because she is proceeding pro se.
See, e.g., Watson v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
Even if this Court
construes Cabaluna’s allegations in the Proposed Complaint
liberally, it cannot discern either what claims she is asserting
or against whom she is asserting them.
This Court therefore
CONCLUDES that any claim Cabaluna is attempting to allege in the
Proposed Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Omar v. Sea–Land
Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court
may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant
cannot possibly win relief.” (citations omitted)).
Leave to Amend
Because this Court is unable to discern what claims
Cabaluna is attempting to allege in the Proposed Complaint, this
Court cannot provide her with notice of how to cure the
deficiencies in these claims.
At the same time, this Court
cannot say that it is “absolutely clear that no amendment can
cure the defect.”
(9th Cir. 1995).
See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248
This Court therefore GRANTS Cabaluna leave to
file an amended complaint in this case.
However, this Court provides the following analysis in
order to provide guidance to Cabaluna regarding claims that she
may have attempted to allege in the Proposed Complaint.
If Cabaluna alleges claims that are duplicative of her
claims in CV 14-480, those claims must be dismissed with
prejudice - i.e., without permission to amend - if: a) the
proposed claims and relief sought are the same in this case
as in CV 14-480; and b) the parties in the two cases are the
same. See Bennett-Bagorio v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
Civil No. 13–00071 DKW–KSC, 2014 WL 296860, at *5-11 (D.
Hawai`i Jan. 24, 2014) (dismissing a complaint with
prejudice because “the two-part test to find a duplicative
complaint,” was satisifed (applying the analysis set forth
in Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 68889 (9th Cir. 2007))).1
Under the doctrine established by Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-46 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals
Adams was overruled on other grounds by Taylor v.
Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). See, e.g., Phillips v. Salt
River Police Dep’t, 586 F. App’x 381 (9th Cir. 2014).
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983) (“the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine”), this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a
case that effectively seeks appellate review of a state
court’s decision. See Baker v. Hawaii, 977 F. Supp. 2d
1026, 1034 (D. Hawai`i 2013) (describing the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine). Cabaluna therefore cannot assert a claim that
the state court should have granted her request for a TRO
against Governor Ige and Mayor Caldwell.
Claims on Behalf of T.T.
In the Proposed Complaint, Cabaluna continues to
attempt to bring claims on behalf of T.T.
For the same reasons
set forth in the 4/30/15 Order, this Court CONCLUDES that
Cabaluna cannot bring claims on behalf of T.T.
See 4/30/15 Order
Insofar as the claims on behalf of T.T. are not properly
before this Court, it will not address the merits of those
Because this Court finds that it is arguably possible
for T.T. to bring claims, through a licensed attorney, based on
at least some of the facts that Cabaluna alleges in the Proposed
Complaint, this Court grants T.T. leave to file an amended
complaint in this case through a licensed attorney.
III. Submission of Amended Complaint
This Court ORDERS that any amended complaint in this
case must be filed by June 26, 2015.
This Court emphasizes that
T.T. may only file an amended complaint through counsel.
Court CAUTIONS Cabaluna and T.T. that, if they fail to file an
amended complaint by June 26, 2015, this Court will issue an
order dismissing this case with prejudice and directing the
Clerk’s Office to close the case.
This Court also CAUTIONS Cabaluna that, if she files an
amended complaint which includes claims that are duplicative of
claims in CV 14-480, or claims which this Court cannot consider
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, those claims will be dismissed
Cabaluna’s Proposed Complaint continues to raise claims
on T.T’s behalf, contrary to this Court’s ruling that T.T. can
only bring claims through a licensed attorney.
Further, to the
extent that Cabaluna attempts to allege her own claims in the
Proposed Complaint, those claims fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
This Court therefore DENIES Cabaluna
leave to file the Proposed Complaint and STRIKES it from the
This Court GRANTS Cabaluna and T.T. leave to file an
amended complaint by June 26, 2015, according to the terms set
forth in this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, May 26, 2015.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
MARY GOLD CABALUNA, T.T. VS. SECRETARY OF HUMAN HEALTH SERVICE,
ET AL; CIVIL 15-00112 LEK-RLP; ORDER STRIKING PROPOSED COMPLAINT
FILED ON MAY 11, 2015
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?