Hoapili v. Enoki et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 1 ; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 3 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/14/2017. (afc) Excerpt of conclusion: "The court grants Hoapili leave to file an Amended Complaint that states a viable claim no later than September 18, 2017. Hoapili may submit another IFP Application at that time.Failure to file an Amended Complaint, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new IFP Application, will result in the automatic dismissal of this action on or after September 21, 2017."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 will be served by first class mail on August 15, 2017.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DIANNE HOAPILI, aka
KUULEIMOMI ‘O PA’AHAO,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ELLIOT R. ENOKI, UNITED
)
STATES ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF
HAWAI’I, ACTING UNITED STATES )
ATTORNEY; DOUGLAS CHIN, STATE )
)
OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL, HAWAII
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL; STEVEN T.
)
MNUCHIN, UNITED STATES
)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
)
SECRETARY,
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 17-00384 SOM-KJM
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
I.

INTRODUCTION.
On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff Dianne Hoapili,

proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint in this matter along with
an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees and Costs (“IFP Application”).

See ECF Nos. 1 & 3.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this court has screened the
Complaint and determined that it fails to allege a claim over
which this court has jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the court

dismisses the Complaint and denies the IFP Application as moot.

1

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,

The court therefore screens his 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.
III.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
ANALYSIS.
Hoapili’s rambling Complaint is basically a stream-of-

consciousness document filled with rhetorical questions that is
far from the “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief” required by Rule 8(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
From what the court can glean from the Complaint,
Hoapili is dissatisfied, in part, with the disposition of
previous state-court cases.

Given the references to state-court

case numbers in the Complaint, the court notes that Hoapili may
be attempting to appeal a state-court decision to this court.
If the state-court proceedings are ongoing, Hoapili should
proceed in state court.

Even if those proceedings have

concluded, appeal of a final judgment to this court is barred by
2

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

See Dist. of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).

To the extent

that Hoapili is dissatisfied with the disposition of any federal
case, the court notes that Hoapili should file an appeal or seek
reconsideration in those particular cases, rather than filing a
separate Complaint and seeking redress in this case.
Even if Hoapili could be said to have stated any
cognizable claim, Hoapili fails to allege facts from which
jurisdiction can be derived.

That is, the Complaint fails to

assert any federal claim upon which relief can be granted, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, and fails to allege diversity of citizenship.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

For example, Hoapili asks why Elliot

Enoki or Douglas Chin cannot be retained as her attorney in this
matter and why Steven Mnuchin cannot be retained as the
comptroller.

See ECF No. 1, PageID # 3.

She also questions

whether her civil rights have been restored after the dismissal
of an “indictment,” although it is not clear exactly what
indictment she is referring to.

See id., PageID # 4.

Hoapili

also asks, among other things, if she is a “prisoner of war” and
“[w]hich Crown gave the Internal Revenue Service sovereign
immunity in the Kingdown of Hawai’i at 1874.”

3

See id.,

PageID # 5.

These types of questions do not state any viable

claims over which this court has jurisdiction.
This court discerns no independent basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, having screened the

Complaint under § 1915, the court dismisses the Complaint for
failure to allege jurisdiction properly and denies the IFP
application as moot.
Hoapili may amend the Complaint no later than
September 18, 2017.

In any such Amended Complaint, Hoapili must

allege facts satisfying subject matter jurisdiction
requirements.

Any Amended Complaint must be complete in itself.

That is, it may not incorporate by reference the original
Complaint.

Any Amended Complaint should include only facts

relevant to Hoapili’s claims, which she should clearly identify.
To ensure the clarity of her 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 in the Amended Complaint?”
If Hoapili chooses to file an Amended Complaint, she
must either pay the filing fee or submit another motion to
proceed without prepayment of fees.

If Hoapili fails to amend

the Complaint, and if she fails to submit another motion to
proceed without prepayment of fees or fails to pay the filing
4

fee, this action will be automatically dismissed on or after
September 21, 2017.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Hoapili’s Complaint is dismissed, and the IFP

Application is denied as moot.

The court grants Hoapili leave

to file an Amended Complaint that states a viable claim no later
than September 18, 2017.

Hoapili may submit another IFP

Application at that time.
Failure to file an Amended Complaint, as well as to
pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new IFP Application,
will result in the automatic dismissal of this action on or
after September 21, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 14, 2017.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
Dianne Hoapili, aka Kuuleimomi ‘O Pa’ahao v. Elliot R. Enoki, United States
Attorney, District of Hawaii, Acting United States Attorney; Douglas Chin,
State of Hawaii, Department of Attorney General, Hawaii Attorney General;
Steven T. Mnuchin, United States Department of the Treasury Secretary, Civ.
No. 17-00384 SOM-KJM; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

5