Kanahele v. Gawlik

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 7, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-02481
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Kanahele v. Gawlik, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Micah Kanahele, No. CV 20-02481-PHX-JAT (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Micheal Gawlik, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Plaintiff Micah Kanahele, who is confined in the Saguaro Correctional Center, has 16 filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint 18 with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $6.67. The remainder of 23 the fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income 24 credited to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate 26 government agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 25 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 26 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 27 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 3 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 5 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 Plaintiff names Investigator Micheal Gawlik, Security Threat Group (STG) Officer 8 Armando Perez, and Hawaii Contract Monitor Jennifer Bechler as Defendants in his three- 9 count Complaint. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and money damages. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by “false 11 allegations.” Plaintiff claims that on September 9,1 he spoke with non-party Chief of 12 Security Russell “about talking to Contract Monitor J. Bechler about (interstate compact) 13 or early parole to Arizona.” Plaintiff alleges Russell stated, “your co-defendant there and 14 didn’t you testify or ma[k]e a statement.” Plaintiff claims this information is false and he 15 “never made a statement or testified on [a] co-defendant or anyone ever.” Plaintiff claims 16 Russell told him to calm down and that he was just relaying information from Defendants 17 Belcher, Gawlik, and Perez. Plaintiff states he immediately wrote to all Defendants and 18 his attorney. Plaintiff contends his attorney sent him a copy of the grand jury indictment 19 “with co-defendant[’]s statement, and not [Plaintiff’s].” Plaintiff gave copies to Russell 20 and Defendant Gawlik. Gawlik “responded saying he [didn’t] know where [Plaintiff was] 21 getting information from, but . . . did not deny saying these false allegations, which he 22 could have said.” Plaintiff contends Defendants’ actions “could have a major impact on 23 one[’]s life or anyone[’]s life with these false allegations . . . , especially in a prison 24 environment to defame ones character causing injury to the reputation of private 25 individuals such as [Plaintiff].” 26 In Count Two, Plaintiff claims he has been retaliated against, in violation of the First 27 Amendment. Plaintiff claims Defendants Gawlik, Perez, and Bechler lack “sufficient

28 1 Plaintiff does not specify a year. 1 information to form a belief as to slandering/defaming one[’s] character with these false 2 allegations and therefore denies same.” Plaintiff claims he “personally experienced 3 Defendants’ harassment in retaliation due to past history” and that Defendants “abuse 4 [their] authority by retaliating against Plaintiff as punishment by making false allegation[s] 5 claims without documentary evidence provided by the courts.” Plaintiff further claims 6 Defendant Perez violated his “1st Amendment rights/freedom of speech to speak a cultural 7 language, claiming it is consider[ed] to be STG activity . . . and gang affiliated to speak or 8 study our Polynesian cultural language.” Plaintiff argues “this is clearly a[n] ongoing 9 pattern and a campaign of harassment in retaliation for past history.” 10 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges violations of his First Amendment free speech 11 rights.

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

Related

Gardner v. Collins
27 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1829)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Procunier v. Martinez
416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Thornburgh v. Abbott
490 U.S. 401 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Wilson v. United States Government
23 F.3d 559 (First Circuit, 1994)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Manuel Lucero v. Dan Russell, Acting Warden
741 F.2d 1129 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kanahele v. Gawlik, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanahele-v-gawlik-azd-2021.