Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Todd Duell alleges that on November 25, 2025, Honolulu Police Department (HPD) officers entered his home without consent or a warrant, arrested him without articulable probable cause, and made threatening remarks during detention. The court dismissed his original complaint for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), but granted leave to amend. Duell's subsequent amended complaint and other filings were struck or denied. The court emphasized that any amended complaint must clearly link factual allegations to each claim and specify the connection between defendants' conduct and the alleged legal violations.
Tax Type
Tax evasion and fraud allegations against police officers
Issues
- The court found that the plaintiff's allegations about tax, securities, and identity fraud lacked a clear connection to the defendants (HPD officers), making it impossible to establish a valid claim under the cited legal provisions.
- The court determined that the plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6) by not providing a short and plain statement of claims or sufficient factual matter to establish plausibility.
- The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under federal and state criminal law, citing that private citizens lack standing to initiate criminal prosecutions, which must be handled by prosecuting officers.
Holdings
- The court grants the motion to dismiss the original Complaint with leave to amend, requiring Plaintiff to clarify his claims by February 27, 2026, while dismissing criminal law claims without leave to amend.
- Criminal law claims are dismissed without leave to amend, as private citizens lack standing to enforce criminal prosecutions and such claims are outside the court's jurisdiction.
- The court adopts the recommendation to strike the as-construed motion to amend the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the amended complaint for non-compliance with Local Rules.
Remedies
- The court granted the motion to dismiss the original Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) with leave to amend, requiring Plaintiff to file a compliant amended complaint by February 27, 2026.
- The court struck the plaintiff's second response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21) for being filed without leave of court.
- The court struck the plaintiff's Cross-Complaint (Dkt. No. 12) against the City & County of Honolulu for being filed against a non-coparty.
- The court adopted the recommendation to strike Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. No. 7) due to non-compliance with Local Rules, and directed the Clerk to strike it.
- The court denied Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. No. 22), including requests to strike a declaration, enter default against defendants, and file an additional response.
Tax Issue Category
Other
Legal Principles
The Court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Rule 8(a), requiring a short and plain statement of claims showing entitlement to relief. The Court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to connect factual allegations to asserted claims, did not comply with Rule 8(a)'s requirements, and included legally unsupported allegations unrelated to the defendants. Dismissal was granted with leave to amend, except for criminal law claims which were dismissed without leave to amend.
Precedent Name
- Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D.
- Pliler v. Ford
- Eldridge v. Block
- Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 805-1, 806-7
- Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Cited Statute
- Civil Rights Act of 1871
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Derrick K. Watson
Passage Text
- Finally, although Duell is permitted leave to amend to the extent set forth above, such leave does not extend to any claim brought for a purported violation of federal or State criminal law... All such criminal law claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend.
- Second, as mentioned, Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of a claim. Here, the Complaint contains no statement of any claim beyond the constitutional or statutory provision mentioned in the Ledger. This too is unacceptable.
- Dismissal of the Complaint is appropriate because, even liberally construed, Duell does not connect any factual allegations with the claims he purports to bring and, thus, fails to satisfy even the basic requirements of Rule 8. Because amendment may cure the Complaint's deficiencies, leave to amend is granted.