Williams v. Ige et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR MANDAMUS ORDER WITH MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ORDER re: 7 , 13 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 6/19/2017. (afc) Excerpt of conclusion: "(1) The Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 17 1915A(b). Specifically, the due process claims for clemency, pardon, or transfer to the Hawaii Stat e Hospital are DISMISSED with prejudice. His Eighth Amendment claims, regarding the alleged denial of adequate mental health care (in the form of a denial of a transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital) and of assault and abuse, are DISMISSED with leave to amend. (2) Williams may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above on or before July 17, 2017. Failure to cure these deficiencies may result in dismissal of this action, and Plaintiff may incur a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)."CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). < br>A copy of the instant order and the Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form will be served this date by first class mail addressed to Mr. Williams at the following addresses: MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS A6070389Halawa Correctional FAcility99-902 Moanalua RoadHonolulu, HI. and MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS A6070389 Saguaro Correctional Center 1250 East Arica Road Eloy, AZ 85131.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS,
#A6070389,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID Y. IGE, TOMMY
)
JOHNSON, JODIE MAESAKA
)
HIRATA, DONALD TRUMP,
)
DOVELINE BORGES,
)
)
Defendants,
)
__________________________ )

CIV. NO. 17 00222 SOM RLP
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DENYING MOTIONS FOR
MANDAMUS ORDER WITH
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION ORDER

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
MOTIONS FOR MANDAMUS ORDER WITH MANDATORY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiff Maunu Renah
Williams’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 11,
and two nearly identical Motions “For A Ma[n]damus
Order With Mandatory Injunction and Temporary
Interlocutory Injunction Order,” ECF Nos. 7, 13.1
Williams names Hawaii Governor David Y. Ige, Hawaii
Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) Parole and Pardon
To the extent Williams informally sought appointment of
counsel in his first Motion, ECF No. 7, and in a separate
request, ECF No. 6, these requests were denied on June 13, 2017.
See Order, ECF No. 14. For the same reasons set forth in that
Order, his request for counsel in his second Motion, ECF No. 13,
is denied.
1

Administrator Tommy Johnson, DPS Deputy Director of
Corrections Joedie Maesaka Hirata, President Donald J.
Trump, and Halawa Correctional Facility (“HCF”)
Residency Section Administrator Doveline Borges as
Defendants.

He alleges that Defendants violated his

constitutional rights by denying him a pardon,
clemency, or transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital.
See FAC, ECF No. 11.
For the following reasons, Williams’s FAC is
DISMISSED with leave granted to amend, and his Motions
for a Writ of Mandamus are DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

Williams is incarcerated at HCF and is proceeding
in forma pauperis.
2017.

He commenced this action on May 17,

See Compl., ECF No. 1.

He has since filed two

amended Complaints, ECF No. 4 (filed May 30, 2017) and
ECF No. 11 (filed June 9, 2017), a motion to clarify
his original Complaint, ECF No. 8, and a supplement to
the amended Complaint of May 30, 2017, ECF No. 9.2
2

On June 14, 2017, the court clarified that the FAC of
June 9, 2017, is the operative pleading in this action. See
Order, ECF No. 15.
2

On June 7 and 8, 2017, Williams filed the Motions
for Writ of Mandamus now before the court.

ECF Nos. 7,

13.
Williams states that he wrote to each Defendant, as
well as to many other federal and state elected
officials, requesting a pardon or clemency.

See FAC,

ECF Nos. 11, PageID #73 (listing individuals Williams
contacted requesting a pardon); 11 1 (May 8, 2017
letter to Senators Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz).
In Count I, Williams alleges that Governor Ige and
President Trump abused their discretion and violated
his constitutional rights (and the Bible) by denying
his request for a pardon and for community health
treatment.

Williams states that Ige’s and Trump’s

“negligence” caused him to be “abused, assaulted in
prison by officials and inmates to committ [sic]
suicide.”

FAC, ECf No. 11 5, PageID #84.

He provides

no facts regarding this alleged abuse or assault.
In Count II, Williams alleges that DPS Deputy
Director Maesaka Hirata and HCF Residency Administrator
Borges abused their discretion and conspired to violate
3

his constitutional rights, despite knowing of his
mental health history and of “assaults and inmates
committing suicide,” when they denied him a transfer to
the Hawaii State Hospital to “prevent [his] potential
injury and suicide.”

FAC, ECF No. 11 5, PageID #85.

He again asserts “abuse” and says he was “assaulted in
prison,” but provides no details regarding this alleged
abuse or assault.

Id.

In Count III, Williams alleges DPS Pardon
Administrator Johnson negligently denied him relief,
and again asserts that he was “abused and assaulted in
prison[],” without supporting facts.

Id., PageID #86.

Williams attaches to the FAC a Psychiatry Progress
Note signed by Louise Lettich, M.D., and dated May 12,
2017.

ECF No. 4 4.

Dr. Lettich diagnosed Williams

with “Psychotic disorder NOS 298.9 (Primary),” and as
“Schizophrenic, Paranoid F20.0.”

Id.

She noted his

feelings of psychiatric instability, and his desire to
be transferred to the Hawaii State Hospital for a
“respite.”

Id.

Williams reportedly told her that he

had recently witnessed another inmate attempt suicide
4

and had been assaulted by a different inmate in the
past.

Dr. Lettich did not approve Williams’s request

for a transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital, but
ordered that he “continue chlorpromazine as directed”
for his “Psychotic disorder NOS.”

Id.

Williams seeks a writ of mandamus directing
Defendants to issue a “Pardon Clemency Executive Order”
within 28 days, to transfer him to the Hawaii State
Hospital within seventy two hours, and, upon such
release, to provide community health treatment at the
Hilo Mental Health Intake Office.

See FAC, ECF No. 11

5, PageID #87; Mot., ECF No. 13.
II.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING

Federal courts must screen all cases in which
prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, or seek to proceed without
prepayment of the civil filing fees.
§§ 1915(b)(2) and 1915A(a).

See 28 U.S.C.

The court must identify

cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
5

defendant who is immune from such relief.

Id. at

§§ 1915(b)(2) and 1915A(b).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007)).

Moreover, a plaintiff must demonstrate

that each defendant personally participated in the
deprivation of his rights.

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
Pro se prisoners’ pleadings must be liberally
construed and given the benefit of any doubt.
Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.
2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.
2010).

However, “the liberal pleading standard . . .

applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989).
6

“[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint
may not supply essential elements of the claim that
were not initially pled.”

Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982)).

A plaintiff must identify specific facts

supporting the existence of substantively plausible
claims for relief.

Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S.

Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible
that the plaintiff can correct the complaint’s defects.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
III.

DISCUSSION

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a
plaintiff must show ‘(1) that the conduct complained of
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of
a federal constitutional or statutory right.’”

Hydrick

v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 556

7

U.S. 1256 (2009); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
48 (1988); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Additionally, a plaintiff must allege that he
suffered a specific injury as a result of a particular
defendant’s conduct and an affirmative link between the
injury and the violation of his rights.

See Monell v.

Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v.
Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 72, 377 (1976).

“A person

‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if
he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is
legally required to do that causes the deprivation of
which complaint is made.”

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
A.

No Right to Clemency or Pardon
Williams alleges that Defendants violated the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments by denying him a pardon or
clemency.

The procedural guarantees of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses apply only
when a constitutionally protected liberty or property
8

interest is at stake.

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S.

651, 672 (1977); Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827
(9th Cir. 1997).

It is well established, however, that

an inmate has no constitutional right to commutation of
a sentence.

See Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v.

Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 464, 467 (1981) (holding that
the power vested in the Connecticut Board of Pardons to
commute sentences conferred no rights beyond the right
to seek commutation); Woratzeck v. Stewart,

118 F.3d

648, 653 (9th Cir. 1997) (“There is no constitutional
right to clemency.”); Joubert v. Neb. Bd. of Pardons,
87 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1996) (“It is well
established that prisoners have no constitutional or
fundamental right to clemency.”).
“In terms of the Due Process Clause, a [] felon’s
expectation that a lawfully imposed sentence will be
commuted or that he will be pardoned is no more
substantial than an inmate’s expectation, for example,
that he will not be transferred to another prison; it
is simply a unilateral hope.”
465 (footnote omitted).

Dumschat, 452 U.S. at

Moreover, “[u]nlike probation,
9

pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally
been the business of the courts; as such, they are
rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial
review.”

Id. at 464.

There can be no state created

liberty interest in the availability of clemency, or in
the manner in which the State conducts clemency
proceedings, because the denial of clemency does not
impose “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate
in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272,
283 (1998) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995)).

The “denial of clemency merely means that the

inmate must serve the sentence originally imposed.”
Id. at 283.
To be clear, “[t]here is no right under the Federal
Constitution to be conditionally released before the
expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are
under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners.”
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011); (citing
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex,
442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)).

Nor do Hawaii’s parole statutes
10

create a liberty interest in release prior to
completion of a sentence.

See Mujahid v. Apao, 795 F.

Supp. 1020, 1024 (D. Haw. 1992) (determining that
Hawaii’s parole regime creates no liberty interest in
parole); Rideout v. Haw. Paroling Auth., 2014 WL
1571286, at *3 (D. Haw. Apr. 17, 2014) (collecting
District of Hawaii cases).
Williams’s due process claims regarding Defendants’
alleged denial of his requests for clemency or pardon
are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

Amendment

to this claim is futile and this dismissal is with
prejudice, meaning that the claim may not be reasserted
in this case in an amended complaint.

The court notes

in passing that a President has no authority to issue a
commutation or pardon with respect to a state
conviction or sentence, and that no governor may issue
a commutation or pardon with respect to a federal
conviction or sentence.
B.

Transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital
Williams complains that Defendants Maesaka Hirata

and Borges have denied his request for a transfer to
11

the Hawaii State Hospital.

He attaches a letter from

Borges, written on behalf of Maesaka Hirata, explaining
that Williams does not qualify for such a transfer
because no psychiatrist or court of law has recommended
or agreed to such a transfer.

See FAC, ECF No. 11 2

(letter dated March 16, 2017).
First, inmates have no constitutional right to be
housed at particular facilities or to be transferred to
the facility of their choice.

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461

U.S. 238, 244 48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215,
224 25 (1976) (no liberty interest is implicated in a
prison’s reclassification and transfer decisions);
Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)
(per curiam). Cf. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 68
(1983) (transfer from general population to
administrative segregation does not involve a protected
interest); Lucero v. Russell, 741 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir.
1984) (transfer to maximum security does not infringe
on any protected liberty interest).

As stated in

Dumschat, such an expectation “is simply a unilateral
hope.”

452 U.S. at 465
12

Second, although inmates have an Eighth Amendment
right to adequate mental health care, Doty v. Cty. of
Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994), they must
show that a defendant acted with “deliberate
indifference” to a serious medical need to state a
claim for the denial of such care.

McGuckin v. Smith,

974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992).

Dr. Lettich

declined to approve Williams’s request for a transfer
to the Hawaii State Hospital on May 12, 2017, only
three days before Williams mailed his original
Complaint to the court for filing.

See ECF No. 11 3.

On these facts, Williams fails to state a claim that
Borges or Maesaka Hirata acted with deliberate
indifference to his mental health or safety by denying
his request for a transfer to the Hawaii State
Hospital.

Williams’s claims challenging the decision

to deny him a transfer are DISMISSED.
C.

Claims of Abuse and Assault
In each Count against each Defendant, Williams

vaguely refers to assaults and abuse, and says other
inmates were “committing suicide,” and that Defendants
13

Maesaka Hirata and Borges were aware of these
incidents.

But he provides no details concerning these

vague allegations.

He does not state when or where he

was assaulted, or by whom (inmates or guards), or
explain how any Defendant was personally involved in,
knew of, or failed to prevent anyalleged abuse or
assaults or suicide.
Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a complaint must include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,” and “[e]ach allegation must be
simple, concise, and direct.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e).

Although Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to
identify the statutory or constitutional source of a
claim, he nevertheless must “give ‘fair notice’ of the
claim and its basis.”
736 37 (9th Cir. 2004).

Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731,
If the factual elements of a

claim are not organized into a short and plain
statement, dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 is
proper.

See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864

F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); McHenry v. Renne, 84
14

F,3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1986); Nevijel v. N. Coast
Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 75 (9th Cir. 1981).
Williams’s vague references to assaults and abuse
fail to provide detail sufficient to support a
plausible inference that Defendants violated his rights
under the Eighth Amendment.

It is also impossible for

Defendants to understand the claims against them.

His

assault and abuse claims are DISMISSED with leave
granted to amend.
IV.

LEAVE TO AMEND

The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave granted to
amend the Eighth Amendment claims only.

Williams may

file an amended complaint on or before July 17, 2017
that cures the deficiencies noted above.

An amended

complaint generally supersedes the previous complaint.
See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 907, n.1 (9th
Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Thus, an amended complaint

should stand on its own without incorporation or
reference to a previous pleading.

Defendants not named

and claims dismissed without prejudice that are not
realleged in an amended complaint may later be deemed
15

voluntarily dismissed.

Id. at 928 (stating claims

dismissed with prejudice need not be repled in an
amended complaint to preserve them for appeal, but
claims that are “voluntarily dismissed” are considered
“waived if not repled”).
V.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

If Williams fails to file an amended complaint, or
is unable to amend his claims to cure their
deficiencies, this dismissal may count as a “strike”
under the “3 strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Under the 3 strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring
a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in
any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

16

VI.

MOTIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is considered an
“extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary
situations.”

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988).

Because the writ of

mandamus is “one of the most potent weapons in the
judicial arsenal,” a petitioner must satisfy three
conditions before a writ may be issued on his behalf:
(1) there is no other adequate means to attain the
desired relief; (2) the right to issuance of the writ
is clear and indisputable; and (3) the issuance of the
writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

Cheney v.

United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 81 (2004).
Williams fails to state a claim to clemency,
pardon, or transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital.

He

cannot, therefore, satisfy any of the three conditions
for issuance of a writ.

Accordingly, his Motions for

Writ of Mandamus are DENIED.
VII.
(1)

CONCLUSION

The Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
17

1915A(b).

Specifically, the due process claims for

clemency, pardon, or transfer to the Hawaii State
Hospital are DISMISSED with prejudice.

His Eighth

Amendment claims, regarding the alleged denial of
adequate mental health care (in the form of a denial of
a transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital) and of assault
and abuse, are DISMISSED with leave to amend.
(2)

Williams may file an amended complaint curing

the deficiencies noted above on or before July 17,
2017.

Failure to cure these deficiencies may result in

dismissal of this action, and Plaintiff may incur a
strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
(3) The Motions for Writ of Mandamus, ECF Nos. 7
and 13, are DENIED.
(4) To the extent Williams seeks appointment of
counsel in his second Motion for Writ of Mandamus, ECF
No. 13, his request is DENIED as set forth in the Order
Denying Motions For Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 14.
(5)

The Clerk is directed to mail Williams a

prisoner civil rights complaint form so that he may
comply with the directions in this Order.
18

(6) In serving this order on Williams, the Clerk is
directed to send a copy to him not only at Halawa
Correctional Facility, but also at Saguaro Correctional
Center, 1252 E. Arica, Eloy, AZ 85131.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i; June 19, 2017.

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

Williams v. Ige, 1:17-cv-00222 SOM/RLP; Scrn 2017 Williams 17-222 som (dsm FAC, dny
Mand)

19