Hermanns-Raymond v. Lewis

CourtDistrict Court, D. Hawaii
DecidedJuly 16, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-00286
StatusUnknown

This text of Hermanns-Raymond v. Lewis (Hermanns-Raymond v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hermanns-Raymond v. Lewis, (D. Haw. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ROCKY HERMANNS-RAYMOND, CIVIL NO. 24-00286 LEK-RT #A6026839, ORDER DISMISSING IN PART Plaintiff, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING vs. SERVICE

JERMAINE LEWIS,

Defendant.

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Rocky Hermanns-Raymond’s Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (“Complaint”).1 ECF No. 1. In the Complaint, Hermanns-Raymond alleges that Defendant Jermaine Lewis, a police officer with the Maui Police Department (“MPD”), used excessive force during an arrest on September 27, 2022. Id. at PageID.7–PageID.8. Hermanns-Raymond also alleges the common law torts of assault and battery claims based on Officer Lewis’s actions. Hermanns-Raymond names Officer Lewis in both his individual and official capacities. Id. at PageID.1. After screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a), the Court concludes that Hermanns-

1 Rocky Hermans is currently incarcerated at the Halawa Correctional Facility. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.1; see also VINE, https://vinelink.vineapps.com/search/HI/Person (select “ID Number,” enter “A6026839,” and select “Search”) (last visited July 10, 2024). Raymond’s excessive force, assault, and battery claims against Officer Lewis in his individual capacity require a response. Hermanns-Raymond’s claims against

Officer Lewis in his official capacity are DISMISSED. I. STATUTORY SCREENING The Court is required to screen all in forma pauperis prisoner complaints

filed against government officials, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). See Byrd v. Phx. Police Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 2018). Claims or complaints that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek damages from defendants who are immune from suit must be dismissed. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010). Screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a) involves the same

standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). That is, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A claim is “plausible” when the facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific defendant for specific misconduct. See id. In conducting this screening, the Court liberally construes pro se litigants’ pleadings and resolves all doubts in their favor. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The Court must grant leave to amend if it appears the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. When a claim cannot be saved by amendment, however, dismissal with

prejudice is appropriate. See Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of Los Angeles, 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013). II. BACKGROUND2 At approximately 6:00 a.m. on the morning of September 27, 2022,

Hermanns-Raymond was standing near an intersection in Wailuku when three MPD vehicles arrived. ECF No. 1 at PageID.7. An unspecified number of police officers exited the vehicles and began chasing Hermanns-Raymond. Id. Officer

Lewis eventually caught up to Hermanns-Raymond, grabbed him by the collar, and punched him in the face. Id. At that point, Hermanns-Raymond surrendered, dropped to the ground, and said, “I’m not resisting.” Id. After handcuffing Hermanns-Raymond without incident, Officer Lewis

began punching Hermanns-Raymond in the head and ribs. Id. Hermanns-

2 Hermanns-Raymond’s factual allegations are accepted as true for purposes of screening. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). Raymond did not resist, and he repeatedly yelled, “I’m not resisting.” Id. Officer Lewis punched Hermanns-Raymond approximately eighteen or nineteen times. Id.

Hermanns-Raymond was later taken to a hospital where X-rays revealed a broken nose and rib. Id. Hermanns-Raymond commenced this lawsuit by signing the Complaint on

June 21, 2024. ECF No. 1. On July 8, 2024, the Court granted Hermanns- Raymond’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See ECF Nos. 2, 3. In the Complaint, Hermanns-Raymond alleges that Officer Lewis used excessive force during the September 27, 2022 arrest. ECF No. 1 at PageID.4–PageID.8. He also

alleges the common law torts of assault and battery. Id. Hermanns-Raymond seeks $650,000 in damages. Id. at PageID.6. III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Framework for Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “Section 1983 provides a cause of action against ‘[e]very person who, under color of’ law deprives another of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.’” Cornel v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting

42 U.S.C. § 1983) (alteration in original). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Park v. City & County of Honolulu, 952 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2020).

B. Official Capacity Claims Hermanns-Raymond names Officer Lewis in both his individual and official capacities. ECF No. 1 at PageID.1.

As the Supreme Court has explained, “official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). In other words, an “official capacity” claim against Officer

Lewis is a claim against the entity that employs him.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati
475 U.S. 469 (Supreme Court, 1986)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
City of Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Rhodes v. Robinson
621 F.3d 1002 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
John Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre
710 F.3d 1049 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles
729 F.3d 1189 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Mukaida v. Hawaii
159 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Hawaii, 2001)
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
762 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Philip Rosati v. Dr. Igbinoso
791 F.3d 1037 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez
581 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Charles Byrd v. Phoenix Police Department
885 F.3d 639 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
S.R. Nehad v. Neal Browder
929 F.3d 1125 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
Hyun Park v. City and County of Honolulu
952 F.3d 1136 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Elizabeth Cornel v. State of Hawaii
37 F.4th 527 (Ninth Circuit, 2022)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Mukaida v. Hawaii
85 F. App'x 631 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hermanns-Raymond v. Lewis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hermanns-raymond-v-lewis-hid-2024.