Todd Alan Duell v. Honolulu Police Department, Does 1-7

Duell · United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i · February 13, 2026 · No. 25-cv-00518-DKW-RT

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i grants the Honolulu Police Department’s motion to dismiss Todd Alan Duell’s complaint, with leave to amend. The court holds that the complaint fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it does not connect factual allegations to specific claims or defendants, and it dismisses purported federal and state criminal-law claims without leave to amend. The court also strikes or denies several unauthorized or deficient filings and sets a deadline of February 27, 2026, for an amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. The Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8(a) because it did not provide a short and plain statement of any claim and did not connect factual allegations to specific legal claims, defendants, or injuries.
  2. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate because, even liberally construed, the Complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief.
  3. Leave to amend was warranted because the Complaint's deficiencies might be cured by a more definite and properly organized pleading.
  4. Claims based on purported violations of federal or state criminal law were dismissed without leave to amend because a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another and cannot independently bring criminal charges.
  5. Entry of default was properly denied because HPD had appeared and moved to dismiss the Complaint.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the operative Complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claims.
  2. Whether the Complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
  3. Whether Duell should be granted leave to amend the civil claims.
  4. Whether purported claims based on federal or state criminal laws could be amended by a private plaintiff.
  5. Whether the proposed amended complaint and various unauthorized supplemental filings should be stricken.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (12)

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(applied)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(applied)
  • Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra, 898 F.3d 879, 886-887 (9th Cir. 2018)(applied)
  • Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987)(applied)
  • Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004)(applied)
  • Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(applied)
  • King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)(applied)
  • Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)(limited)
  • Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995)(applied)
  • Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008)(applied)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…