Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00485/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00485-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

WO MDR 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Donimic T. Brooks, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

State of Hawaii, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-485-PHX-RCB (BSB) 

 O R D E R 

I. Procedural History

 On January 10, 2013, Plaintiff Donimic T. Brooks, a State of Hawaii inmate who 

is confined in the Corrections Corporation of America's Saguaro Correctional Center, 

filed a document entitled “HRPP Rule 40(c)(2)(3) Form and content, (2) Nonconforming 

Petition, (3) Separate Cause of Action” (“Complaint”) (Doc. 1-2) and a Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 1-4 at p. 7) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of the State 

of Hawaii. On January 18, 2013, the Hawaii Circuit Court ordered all documents in the 

case to be reassigned as a civil proceeding and served on Defendant State of Hawaii 

Department of Public Safety. On March 4, 2013, Defendant State of Hawaii filed a 

Notice of Removal, removing the case to the United States District Court for the District 

of Hawaii. 

In a March 7, 2013 Order, United States District Court Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi 

concluded that removal was appropriate because Plaintiff was alleging that Defendants 

had violated the United States Constitution and laws. Judge Kobayashi transferred the 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 13 Filed 05/13/13 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a). The case was assigned to the undersigned. 

On March 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 8). On 

March 27, 2013, Defendant State of Hawaii filed a Response. On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff 

filed a Reply. On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Show Cause for 

Preliminary Injunction and or a Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 11). 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 

has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a 

pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an 

opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4 requires, in part, that “[a]ll complaints . . . by 

incarcerated persons shall be signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved 

by the Court and in accordance with the instructions provided with the forms.” Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is not on the court-approved form. 

 The Court may, in its discretion, forgo the requirement that a plaintiff use a courtapproved form. See LRCiv 3.4. The Court will require use of the court-approved form 

because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not substantially comply with the court-approved 

form. Plaintiff’s Complaint will therefore be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to 

amend, in order for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a court-approved form. 

III. Leave to Amend 

 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint on a courtapproved form. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form to use for 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 13 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

filing a first amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to use the court-approved form, the 

Court may strike the amended complaint and dismiss this action without further notice to 

Plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First 

Amended Complaint.” The first amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 

entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 

Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 

 A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat an original 

complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised 

in the original complaint is waived if it is not raised in a first amended complaint. King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

IV. Pending Motions

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

 In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment as to the 

liability of three Defendants. In light of the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint for failure 

to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

B. Motion for Default Judgment

 In his Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to a default 

judgment because Defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond. Defendants 

are not required to answer a prisoner’s § 1983 complaint until the Court has completed 

the screening process and has required Defendants to file an answer. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(g). Thus, the Court will deny the Motion for Default Judgment. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 13 Filed 05/13/13 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

C. “Motion to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and or a 

Temporary Restraining Order”

 An injunction or temporary restraining order is appropriate to grant intermediate 

relief of the same character as which may be granted finally, and relief is not proper when 

requested on matters lying wholly outside the issues in suit. See DeBeers Consol. Mines 

v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 

(11th Cir.), amended, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997). To obtain injunctive relief, the 

party “must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s 

motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 

471 (8th Cir. 1994). 

 Because the Court has dismissed the Complaint, the Court cannot determine at this 

time whether the relief requested in the “Motion to Show Cause for Preliminary 

Injunction and or a Temporary Restraining Order” relates to the conduct that will be 

asserted in the amended complaint. Thus, the Court will deny without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and or a Temporary 

Restraining Order.” 

V. Warnings

A. Address Changes

 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion 

for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in 

dismissal of this action. 

B. Copies

 Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further 

notice to Plaintiff. 

 C. Possible Dismissal

 If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 13 Filed 05/13/13 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s “HRPP Rule 40(c)(2)(3) Form and content, (2) Nonconforming 

Petition, (3) Separate Cause of Action” (“Complaint”) (Doc. 1-2) is dismissed for failure 

to file on the court-approved form. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed 

to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this Order. 

 (2) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without 

prejudice. 

 (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 1-4 at p. 7) is denied 

without prejudice as moot.

 (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 8) is denied. 

 (5) Plaintiff’s “Motion to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and or a 

Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 11) is denied without prejudice. 

(6) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a court-approved form for filing a 

civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

DATED this 10th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00485-RCB Document 13 Filed 05/13/13 Page 5 of 5