Williams v. Ige et al
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART re: 33 , 23 , 24 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 7/18/2017. (afc)Excerpt of order: "The Second Amended Comp laint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim against any named Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Williams may file an amended complaint on or before August 14, 2017. Williams is given leave to file an amende d complaint for the sole purpose of realleging his claims regarding an alleged assault that occurred on or about November 29, 2016, at the instigation of ACO Clark. Williams should name ACO Clark as a Defendant, and provide any additional details regarding this incident that he deems important. Failure to timely do so will result in dismissal of this action, and Williams may incur a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." "Until Williams submits an amended complaint that complies with the directions of this Order, he may not file any further motions, notices, letters, or supplements, and the court will take no action on such filings." CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Par ticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). A copy of the instant order and the prisoner civil rights complaint form with its instructions will be served on July 18, 2017 by first class mail addressed to: MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS A6070389HALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 99-902 MOANALUA ROADAIEA, HI. 96701
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MAUNU RENAH WILLIAMS,
DAVID Y. IGE, et al.,
CIV. NO. 17 00222 SOM RLP
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART
The Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint in
Part, filed on July 17, 2017, is hereby amended only to
correct the date on page 10 from November 29, 2017, to
November 29, 2016.
The remainder of the order is
Before the court is Plaintiff Maunu Renah
Williams’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and its
exhibits, ECF No. 23, and Supplement to the SAC, ECF
Williams names Hawaii Governor David Y. Ige,
President Donald J. Trump, and Halawa Correctional
Facility (“HCF”) Residency Section Administrator
Doveline Borges as Defendants.
He again alleges that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights by
denying him a pardon, clemency, or transfer to the
Hawaii State Hospital.
Williams also alleges that an Adult Correctional
Officer (“ACO”) at HCF, ACO Clark, allowed or
encouraged another inmate to assault him in or about
November 29, 2016.
Williams’s SAC is DISMISSED IN PART
with leave granted to amend.
Williams claims that he is a fugitive from justice
from Oregon, Washington, Texas, California, and New
York because of his mental health.
He again challenges
Governor Ige’s and President Trump’s alleged denial of
his requests for clemency, and Defendant Borges’s
denial of his request to transfer to the Hawaii State
Williams also states that ACO Clark incited another
inmate to assault him on November 29, 2016, apparently
to have Williams removed from his workline position in
the HCF kitchen, because Williams is mentally ill and
See SAC, ECF No. 23, PageID #145, #147,
#148; see also Ex. C, ECF No. 23 3.
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
defendant who is immune from such relief.
§§ 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
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
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.
However, “the liberal pleading standard . . .
applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989).
“[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.
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).
“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.’”
v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 556
U.S. 1256 (2009); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
48 (1988); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Claims Against Governor Ige and President Trump are
Dismissed With Prejudice
As the court carefully explained to Williams in its
June 19, 2017 Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint,
he has no constitutional right to a pardon, clemency,
or commutation of his 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.
118 F.3d 648, 653 (9th Cir. 1997) (“There is
no constitutional right to clemency.”).
“There 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)).
Hawaii’s parole statutes create no liberty interest in
release prior to completion of a sentence.
v. Apao, 795 F. Supp. 1020, 1024 (D. Haw. 1992)
(determining that Hawaii’s parole regime creates no
liberty interest in parole).
Williams’s claims against President Trump or
Governor Ige for allegedly violating his right to due
process by denying his requests for clemency or pardon
were dismissed with prejudice on June 19, 2017.
Order, ECF No. 18.
They remain DISMISSED and Williams
may not reallege these claims in any form in this or
Transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital
Williams again complains that Defendant Borges
denied his request to transfer to the Hawaii State
As he was informed in the June 19, 2017
Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint, Williams has
no right to a transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital.
See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244 48 (1983);
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 25 (1976); Johnson
v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per
Further, 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.
974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992).
McGuckin v. Smith,
continues to fail to provide facts supporting his claim
that Borges acted with deliberate indifference to his
need for mental health care.
Williams’s claims against
Borges, whether he challenges her decision to deny his
request to transfer to the Hawaii State Hospital, or
alleges that she denied him adequate mental health
care, again fails to state a claim.
was given leave to amend this claim before and is
unable to do so, Williams’ claims against Defendant
Borges are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Although not clear from the SAC, by reviewing
Williams’s exhibits and reading his pleadings
liberally, the court discerns what may be a viable
claim that ACO Clark failed to protect him from assault
by another inmate.
Williams states that he was
assaulted when “A.C.O. Clark (date 11/29/16) official
misconduct of assisting and given a prison gang member
permission to assault and attack me to remove me from
inmate kitchen worker trustee position for prejudice
and discriminatory reason due to my mental health
disability and non local status.”
See Ex. C, ECF No.
Williams references this assault throughout the
SAC and states that he grieved this incident.
ECF No. 23, PageID #145, #117, #148.
He states a claim
here, which shall be served after Williams submits an
amended pleading explicitly naming ACO Clark as a
Defendant to this action.
LEAVE TO AMEND
The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave granted to
amend so that Williams my reallege his claims regarding
the events of November 29, 2016, and name ACO Clark as
Williams is NOTIFIED that his claims
against Governor Ige, President Trump, and Doveline
Borges have been DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and he may
not reallege them in any amended pleading.
Williams SHALL file an amended complaint AS
EXPLAINED ABOVE on or before August 14, 2017.
amended complaint generally supersedes the previous
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.
named and claims dismissed without prejudice that are
not realleged in an amended complaint may later be
deemed voluntarily dismissed.
Id. at 928 (stating that
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”).
The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim against any named Defendant
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).
Williams may file an amended complaint on or
before August 14, 2017.
Williams is given leave to
file an amended complaint for the sole purpose of
realleging his claims regarding an alleged assault that
occurred on or about November 29, 2016, at the
instigation of ACO Clark.
Williams should name ACO
Clark as a Defendant, and provide any additional
details regarding this incident that he deems
Failure to timely do so will result in
dismissal of this action, and Williams may incur a
strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
(3) The Clerk is directed to mail Williams a
prisoner civil rights complaint form so that he may
comply with the directions in this Order.
(4) Until Williams submits an amended complaint
that complies with the directions of this Order, he may
not file any further motions, notices, letters, or
supplements, and the court will take no action on such
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; July 18, 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 (amended dsm
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?