Caldarone v. Faris et al

Filing 35

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT re 32 , 33 - Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 1/12/2016. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registere d to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Richard W. Caldarone shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on January 13, 2016.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
RICHARD W. CALDARONE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RON M. FARIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 15-00319 SOM-RLP
ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On January 11, 2016, Plaintiff Richard W. Caldarone filed an
affidavit with the title "Order to Quash, Strike and Vacate Judge
Pugliesi's [sic] Denial."

This court construes this document as

Plaintiff's appeal from Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi's
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To File a Second
Amended Complaint.

As the Order Denying Leave was filed on

December 29, 2015, Plaintiff's appeal is timely.
This court affirms the Magistrate Judge, finding the Order
Denying Leave to be well reasoned and further determining that
the affidavit submitted on appeal does not establish any reason
for reversal.
A Magistrate Judge's order may be reversed by a District
Judge only when it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and
the "clearly erroneous" standard is difficult to meet.

See

Boskoff v. Yano, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1083 (D. Haw. 2001)
("Under the 'clearly erroneous' standard, the lower court's

ruling must be accepted unless, after reviewing the entire
record, this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed." (quotations and citations
omitted)); Thorp v. Kepoo, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1260 (D. Haw.
2000) (the clearly erroneous standard is "significantly
deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed").
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit with impassioned
argument but no authority or persuasive analysis that in any way
establishes that the Order Denying Leave was clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law.

Moreover, the affidavit includes demands for

information or documentation, ignoring the need for the court to
base its ruling on the existing record in this circumstance.
A few examples will illustrate the nature of the lengthy
affidavit.

Page 9 of the affidavit asks for witnesses and

documentation "under Rule 37."

Page 10 of the affidavit

complains about a statement that Caldarone’s claims are "opaquely
pled" and says, "Are we in Art Class?
see through it!

Opaque means you can't

Obviously anyone who closes their eyes TO THE

TRUTH won't be able to understand what is going on and should
maybe have their vision checked!"

Page 11 of the affidavit asks,

"are the Courts legitimate in the First place?" and "Does the
KINGDOM OF HAWAII EXIST TODAY?"

In a section on federal question

jurisdiction, the affidavit refers to the Constitution and

2

federal statutes, but those provisions are not cited or hinted at
anywhere in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

If Caldarone

wanted to rely on federal statutes, he should have sought leave
to file a different pleading and should have pled facts
supporting a claim based on federal law.
The Order Denying Leave is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 12, 2016.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
3