Kanahele v. Gawlik

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 9, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-02481·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 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 On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff Micah Kanahele, who is confined in the Saguaro 16 Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 17 an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 7, 2021 Order, the Court 18 granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had 19 failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that 20 cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On February 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The 22 Court will dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 23 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 27 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 28 1 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 II. First Amended Complaint 2 Plaintiff names Investigator Micheal Gawlik, Security Threat Group Officer 3 Armando Perez, and Hawaii Contract Monitor Jennifer Belcher as Defendants in his two- 4 count First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages. 5 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges Defendants defamed his character, in violation of 6 the First Amendment. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Gawlik “failed to research Plaintiff’s 7 files or court documents before making false accusations accusing Plaintiff of testifying,” 8 and “deliberately injure[d] Plaintiff by defaming his name and character among staff and 9 inmates, violating his first amendment rights of the constitution.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) Plaintiff 10 alleges Defendant Gawlik spread rumors “among colleagues,” and Chief of Security 11 Russell witnessed these statements and informed Plaintiff of them in September 2019. (Id.) 12 Plaintiff asserts Defendant Belcher “failed to research Plaintiff’s files or court 13 documents before making false accusations accusing Plaintiff of testifying,” which 14 defamed his character and violated his First Amendment rights. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims 15 Defendant Belcher failed to “correct mistakes & wrongs after being notified by request 16 forms . . . of [Plaintiff’s] attorneys stating facts of their false allegations while Plaintiff 17 suffers injury by being confined & [isolated].” (Id.) 18 Plaintiff further claims Defendant Perez “failed to research Plaintiff’s files or court 19 documents before making false accusations accusing Plaintiff of testifying,” which 20 defamed Plaintiff’s character and violated his First Amendment rights. (Id.) Plaintiff 21 claims Defendant Perez and the other Defendants “verbally spread rumors throughout [the] 22 administration . . . at Saguaro Facility . . ., clearly injur[ing] Plaintiff’s name and character,” 23 and failed to “correct mistakes &wrongs after being notified by request forms.” (Id.) 24 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was retaliated against, in violation of the First 25 Amendment. Plaintiff claims Defendants Gawlik, Belcher, and Perez “falsely accused 26 Plaintiff of making a statement against co-defendant just to dirty and defame Plaintiff’s 27 character among staff & inmates and failed to clear his name and files after being notified 28 by requests, in retaliation to Plaintiff’s aggravated assault charges on staff count[s] 1&2 in 1 private prison run by CoreCivic . . . Sept. 2, 2011 in Florence, AZ.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff 2 asserts that “because of [his] pursuit in justice, [he] had [his] legal work removed from 3 [his] cell Aug. 2019 & Oct. 16, 2019 by M. Gawlik and Armando Peres.” (Id.) Plaintiff 4 claims this caused him to miss a deadline for an appeal. 5 Plaintiff further claims Defendant Perez served him with a disciplinary report “for 6 calling a friend” and “accused” Plaintiff’s friend of being “a known prison gang vso 7 member.” Plaintiff claims he was convicted of the disciplinary charge even though the 8 disciplinary hearing officer verified Plaintiff’s friend was not a gang member. Plaintiff 9 contends he was found guilty “for no other reason but harassment in retaliation due to past.” 10 Plaintiff asserts “[D]efendant[s] inflicted mental suffering on Plaintiff, not knowing 11 what or will they do next.” 12 III. Failure to State a Claim 13 A. Count One 14 As the Court explained in the previous screening Order, defamation is generally not 15 actionable under § 1983. An action for damage to reputation ordinarily “lies . . . in the 16 tort of defamation, not in [42 U.S.C. §] 1983.” Fleming v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 837 17 F.2d 401, 409 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). “To recover damages for defamation 18 under § 1983, a plaintiff

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

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

Kanahele v. Gawlik (Kanahele v. Gawlik) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Paul v. Davis
424 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Hines v. Gomez
108 F.3d 265 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
Cooper v. Dupnik
924 F.2d 1520 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)