Hoapili v. Enoki et al

Filing 17

ORDER Dismissing Second Amended Complaint and DENYING Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis. "Hoapilis 16 Second Amended Complaint is dismissed, and the 15 IFP Application is denied as moot. The court grants Hoapili leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that states a viable claim against identified defendants no later than October 23, 2017. Hoapili may submit another IFP Application at that time.If Hoapili chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint,she must either pay the filing fee or submit another IFP Application. If Hoapili fails to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, or if she fails to submit another IFP Application or fails to pay the filing fee, this action will be automatically dismissed on or after October 24, 2017. " Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/4/17. (cib, )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 the date of this docket entry. Copy of order mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff Dianne Hoapili

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DIANNE HOAPILI, aka
KUULEIMOMI ‘O PA’AHAO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELLIOT R. ENOKI, ACTING
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII; JEFF
SESSIONS, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY; STEVEN T. MNUCHIN,
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 17-00384 SOM-KJM
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I.

INTRODUCTION.
On September 29, 2017, Plaintiff Dianne Hoapili,

proceeding pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint in this
matter along with an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”).
Nos. 15 & 16.

See ECF

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this court

has screened the Second Amended Complaint and determined that it
fails to state a viable claim over which this court has
jurisdiction.

The court therefore dismisses the Second Amended

Complaint and denies Hoapili’s IFP Application.

II.

STANDARD.
To proceed in forma pauperis, Hoapili must demonstrate

that she is unable to prepay the court fees, and that she
sufficiently pleads claims.
1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

Before granting Hoapili’s IFP Application,

this court screens the Second Amended Complaint to see whether
it is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
III.

ANALYSIS.
The factual allegations in Hoapili’s Second Amended

Complaint are sparse, and the relief she seeks is unclear.

The

Second Amended Complaint alleges that, in 1990, Hoapili was
subject to a search and seizure by various federal law
enforcement agencies, as well as a state foreclosure proceeding.
The Second Amended Complaint then alleges that, in 1990 and
1991, she was indicted, tried, and convicted in this court.
ECF No. 16.

See

On December 17, 1992, the Ninth Circuit reversed

Hoapili’s conviction and sentence with respect to charges of
conspiracy, false statements, mail fraud, and false claims,
determining that the record had raised a good faith doubt as to
Hoapili’s competency to waive counsel when she proceeded to

2

trial pro se.

See United States v. Hoapili, 1992 WL 379398 (9th

Cir. Dec. 17, 1992).
The Second Amended Complaint says: “Hoapili seeks a
written conclusion of law in this Second Amended Complaint to
USA v. Dianne K. Hoapili Criminal No. 90-01570 HMF by rule of
law at law.”

ECF No. 16, PageID # 131.

But it is not at all

clear what “written conclusion of law” Hoapili is asking this
court to provide.

The factual allegations combined with the

relief requested simply fail to put Defendants and this court on
notice of what Hoapili is seeking.

Instead, Defendants and this

court are left to guess what conclusion Hoapili is seeking.
Hoapili did not, for example, clearly assert the possible claims
that were discussed by this court in previous orders.
Because this court cannot discern any viable claim
asserted in the Second Amended Complaint over which this court
might have subject matter jurisdiction, the court dismisses the
Second Amended Complaint, giving Hoapili leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint no later than October 23, 2017.

In any such

Third Amended Complaint, Hoapili must allege facts satisfying
subject matter jurisdiction requirements, as well as
specifically identify the relief being sought.
Amended Complaint must be complete in itself.

Any Third
That is, it may

not incorporate by reference any document previously filed with

3

this court.

Any Third Amended Complaint should include only

facts relevant to Hoapili’s claims, which she should clearly
identify.

Any Third Amended Complaint should also identify

which Defendant each claim is being asserted against and
describe why a claim is being asserted against any particular
Defendant.

Before filing any Third Amended Complaint, Hoapili

should consider whether the claim(s) would be barred by the
applicable statute of limitation.

To ensure the clarity of her

Third Amended Complaint, Hoapili should ask herself, “Would a
person unfamiliar with the facts of this case be able to easily
understand the allegations that I am making, know which claims
are asserted against whom, and understand the relief being
sought in court?”
IV.

CONCLUSION
Hoapili’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed, and

the IFP Application is denied as moot.

The court grants Hoapili

leave to file a Third Amended Complaint that states a viable
claim against identified defendants no later than October 23,
2017.

Hoapili may submit another IFP Application at that time.

Before filing another IFP Application, Hoapili should consider
whether she can establish that she is indeed a pauper.

See 2017

Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii,
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited September

4

12, 2017) (setting poverty guideline for a family of 2 in Hawaii
at $18,670).
If Hoapili chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint,
she must either pay the filing fee or submit another IFP
Application.

If Hoapili fails to timely file a Third Amended

Complaint, or if she fails to submit another IFP Application or
fails to pay the filing fee, this action will be automatically
dismissed on or after October 24, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 4, 2017.

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

Dianne Hoapili v. Enoki, et al., Civ. No. 17 00384 SOM KJM; ORDER DISMISSING
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS.

5