Ke Ao Maoli
[9:29:38 PM] Kookoa: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, et al.,
CIV. NO. 11-00702 JMS/RLP
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
On November 18, 2011, Plaintiff Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, as
“Kanaka-Hawaiian subject and Prime Minister for the government of the Kingdom
of the Hawaiian Islands,” (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for
a Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus” seeking the release of three minor children
from the State of Hawaii, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and various individuals
(“Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts that these three minors were unlawfully removed
under the pretense that they needed protection from their father, David Kaawa IV.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are “engaging in a conspiracy to alienate the 
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 19
children from their father, their family, the country of their birth, their culture and
their ethnicity,” which constitutes “GENOCIDE against the Hawaiian people
. . . .”
Although titled as a Writ of Habeas Corpus, neither Plaintiff nor any
of the minor children he seeks release of are “in custody” such that 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 does not apply. See Cucalon v. Rice, 317 Fed. Appx. 602, 603 (9th Cir.
2008) (“We lack habeas corpus jurisdiction because [the mother] and her children
are not ‘in custody’ as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). In any event, upon sua
sponte review, the court DISMISSES the Complaint without leave to amend.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court liberally construes his
pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The
Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful
pleading’ of pro se litigants.”) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam)). The court also recognizes that “[u]nless it is absolutely clear
that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of
the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the
action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 20
Nevertheless, the court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on its own motion. See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv.,
Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua
sponte under [Rule] 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where
the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”); Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961,
968 n.7 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (“The Court can dismiss a claim sua sponte for a
Defendant who has not filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”).
Additionally, a complaint that is “obviously frivolous” does not confer federal
subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte. Franklin v. Murphy,
745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Grupo
Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (“[I]t is the
obligation of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional
“To survive a motion to dismiss [pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)], 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see
also Weber v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). This
tenet -- that the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 21
complaint -- “is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Accordingly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555). Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Factual allegations that only permit the court to infer “the mere possibility of
misconduct” do not show that the pleader is entitled to relief as required by Rule 8.
Id. at 1950.
The court may also dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8 mandates that a complaint
include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that
“each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A
complaint that is so confusing that its “‘true substance, if any, is well disguised’”
does not satisfy Rule 8. Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124,
1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431
(9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)
(“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary detail, yet
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 22
without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what
wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”).
Put differently, a district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to
comply with Rule 8 where the complaint fails to provide defendants with fair
notice of the wrongs they have allegedly committed. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at
1178-80 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the
complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough
detail to guide discovery”); cf. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d
1097, 1105 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding dismissal under Rule 8 was in error where
“the complaint provide[d] fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed by
defendants and [did] not qualify as overly verbose, confusing, or rambling”). Rule
8 requires more than “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” and “[a]
pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations and
quotations omitted). “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8
does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” McHenry, 84
F.3d at 1179.
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 23
Plaintiff, as Prime Minister of the “Kingdom of Hawaii,” seeks release
of three minor children that were apparently taken from the custody of their father
and are allegedly being detained unlawfully by Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that
these children are citizens of the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands, and that their
removal constitutes genocide as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1091(6).
First, the court rejects out of hand Plaintiff’s assertions suggesting that
the “Kingdom of Hawaii” is a separate legal entity from the United State, and that
the State of Hawaii commits “genocide” by taking children into protective services.
There is no legally cognizable Kingdom of Hawaii; the State of Hawaii is a part of
the United States; and Hawaii state custody of children is not “genocide.”
Second, this court appears to lack jurisdiction over the Complaint --
both Plaintiff and Defendants appear to be citizens of the State of Hawaii and no
federal question appears to be presented.
Third, even if Plaintiff presents a Constitutional claim, it fails. After
stripping away the nonsensical allegations from the Complaint, the court is left
with the basic allegations that Defendants took three minor children into custody in
violation of David Kaawa IV’s parental rights. Although Plaintiff did not provide
any details regarding precisely how David Kaawa IV’s parental rights were
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 24
allegedly violated (or why Plaintiff has standing to object to any violation of
Kaawa’s rights), the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such
issues -- the court may not issue child custody decrees, see Ankenbrandt v.
Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (holding that the domestic relations exception
to federal subject matter jurisdiction “divests the federal courts of power to issue
divorce, alimony and child custody decrees”); nor may it may review state court
child custody proceedings. See Hanson v. Firmat, 272 Fed. Appx. 571, 572 (9th
Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of claims asserting due process violations in child
custody proceedings due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine); Watkins v. Proulx, 235 Fed. Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Watkins’ action amounted to a
de facto appeal of a state court child custody order.” (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman bars
“state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings commenced” from asking district
courts to review and reject those judgments.)).
The court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint. Because any
amendment would be futile, this dismissal is without leave to amend.
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 25
For the reasons stated above, the court DISMISSES the Complaint.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 28, 2011.
/_s_/ _J_. _M_i_c_h_a_e_l _S_e_a_b_ri_g_h_t__________
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge
Spinney v. State of Hawaii et al., Civ. No. 11-00702 JMS/RLP; Order Dismissing Complaint
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 26
This was copied when published and quickly was removed from the PACER site and seemingly sealed
Thank you for posting the hidden documents from our eyes..publishing, and copyrights seems to be a big issue with 2011 APEC. Secrets in my view are at the cause of war, on going battles, and downright destruction of humanity.
Our children should not be brutalized by the layers of paper and errs of the state workers which is what I saw happening. The only way for the government to get the hell out of our faces is to eradicate state welfare programs. But, I'm being weird at this moment.
Removing children from parents-family, their place of birth, and their culture is a form of genocide and should be discontinued from government practices. I can remember when we had problems with our families other family members or community members took the child in. And when all was well--the child returned and both sides asked for forgiveness, resolved the problem that was not visible at that time, and the home remained intact.
yes, i remember the days too. my parents would take in not only children but husbands and wives until things were settled and then they would return home. no man, woman or child were taken away from their loved ones. when all was pono, they went home. things were in balance then. less stress and a happier community. it is all of whack now.
I know Auntie Aggie and that is why we work to make this right, to not be quiet and demand what is understood by all civilized people. Maybe some can criticize our mistakes, but we need to say something, rather than do nothing and become history....Kai
at least you guys work to right wrongs. maybe the wording at some places could have been put better. maybe you guys are not as refined as someone else, but i give you credit because you guys doing something about this injustce. to shut up about it is the worst thing you can do, because genocide has been going on far too long.
if someone is criticising what you did, then ask yoursef, are they helping me to make it better, are they putting positive input here, can we round table on this thing and kuka over it, can we come away with a positive way to approach it. can we take this positivething and use it to make it work better
if those criticising you are not doing this, no worry about it. it is easy to blow wind, harder to hold it. talk is cheap, you know. they should help you, or shut up.
this is how i was raised according to the my hawaiian culture. when you see somebody needing help, you help em. you dont wait to be asked. if it is something like what spinney working on, thought is given before the mouth open. you bring out what you think is flaws and why, and then if both are agreeable, you kuka for a solution. criticism is constructive. a problem is identified and the object is to solve. simple.
like i said, if they there to criticise but no help, no worry about it, move on. they need to be quiet. but we both know that they wont.
Mahalo Aggie, We always ready to sit down Kuka, I cant help if if they no do......Kai
I don't know you...........but it was our family who stepped forward to help those in Kahana Oahu giving them Protective Orders, Injunction Notices, left them to protect our families interests...............then I sent their file to Spinney to handle anything else............then due to inaction, the file was brought back into our projects.
We have helped many others.............there's complaints about Spinney when he was with Reverend Keanaaina, etc.
we have recently helped the Lui family and have more than a thousand kanaka maoli on the lands helping to protect our families interests.....
It is obvious that Spinney, Kai are not up to date in the research and doing whatever.....
The intent of posting over time is to educate............and apparently they and even you are not interested in the facts, so.......................my posts on this thread will be removed for others to read, understand..............because it appears that this kind of research goes over many heads.
guess those needing help will know where to find us or e-mail us.
By what you say, you seem to have experience in helping others. Did you find out why there was inactivity with spinney? If spinney is not up to date in his research, give him and those trying to help him some help, pointers, kuka with them. you're helping all these people, why not one more. At least these guys are trying to help him HELP THE CHILDREN. And the children are the issue here. And what are you talking about, when you say I am not interested in the facts. I don't know what you're talking about so wise me up.
http://kingdomofhawaii.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/habeas-corpus-just-... This is the original Habeas Corpus filing
Alfred Spinney is the kanaka willing to go to a US jail to protect your Hawaiian rights, period. Kai Landow
Kai not to start anything here, the children are most vulnerable ..if it takes a slam in the courts as a responsible party when it comes to children--what choices do we have except to act!
Sometimes we forget the breathing of children and their vulnerabilities to their surrounding environment and get lost in the communications because of conveinece to the liking of ego!
I personally, do not want the flesh spirit stuff to spill into when trying to do right by our children and that is what's being recommended here--I thought people were smart now I am taking a few steps back in order to go forward.
Aloha Kaohi, I just think we should focus on the problems and find a way to work with those like Alfred who has paid a heavy price to protect Hawaiian rights. Especially that of our keiki, who are the innocent. Amelia make assertions, Henry guys, Mahealani and I support them. If they work for justice I do not need credentials. we can sort that out in a free Hawaii. I just think Alfred deserves the benefit of the doubt having gone to jail for this Ku'e. Kai