Simmons v. Holma et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
KELVIN SIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDGE KARIN L. HOLMA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP
ORDER (1) REVOKING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(IFP) AND (2) DISMISSING CASE
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
On July 25, 2025, three days after the initiation of this case, the Court
granted Plaintiff Kelvin Simmons’ application to proceed in district court without
prepaying fees or costs (IFP Application) and directed service of the original
Complaint. 	Dkt. No. 9. 	In doing so, the Court observed that service of the
Complaint was appropriate given the initial stages of the case and the lack of a
response at that time from any of the Defendants, while acknowledging the likely
existence of defenses to the claims.
Eight months later, in March 2026, the nature of this case has become
considerably more apparent. 	Simmons has filed well-over a hundred documents,
none of which have resulted in any relief, certain Defendants moved to dismiss the
Complaint, Dkt. No. 127, the original Complaint has been dismissed with leave to
amend, Dkt. No. 185, Simmons has filed an Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 186,
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 221 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

2
two Defendants moved to dismiss the same, Dkt. No. 202, and, on this date, the
Court dismissed those Moving Defendants with prejudice from this case, Dkt.
No. 220. 	In that Dismissal Order, the Court found that judicial immunity barred
certain claims against the Moving Defendants. 	The Court also found that all
claims against the Moving Defendants were subject to dismissal with prejudice
because the Amended Complaint did not come close to satisfying basic federal
pleading requirements in any respect. 	Namely, the Amended Complaint asserts
all claims against a generalized group of “Defendants”, makes no meaningful
factual allegations, and relies upon conclusory and vague assertions of
wrongdoing. 	In addition, because Simmons had been advised of the pleading
standards and how to meet them, and nonetheless failed to follow the same in the
Amended Complaint, further leave to amend was unwarranted.
The Court’s findings in the Dismissal Order apply equally to all claims in
this action and all Defendants. 	Specifically, to repeat in relevant part:
The deficiencies [with the Amended Complaint] are numerous. First,
the Amended Complaint fails to state the name of any specific
Defendant that violated Simmons’ rights. 	Instead, it is simply all
“Defendants”, all “state actors”, and/or all “private actors”. 	Second,
the Amended Complaint contains not one factual allegation of any
“post-notice conduct”, or even the nature of the alleged “notice”.
The same is true of the so-called “poison origin foundation”,
“interference”, “deliberate indifference”, and “retaliat[ion]”.
Therefore, other than through conclusory assertions, the Amended
Complaint does not state what any specific Defendant did or failed to
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 221 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

3
do and when, how any legal right was violated, or any injury
Simmons suffered. 	In other words, the Amended Complaint fails on
every one of the basic pleading requirements identified in the
December 22, 2025 Order.
Dkt. No. 220 at 12.
In this light, it is not only evident that the Amended Complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, but Simmons is unable to do so. 	In
such a situation, the pertinent federal statute is clear: “the court shall dismiss the
case at any time if the court determines that…the action or appeal…fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted[.]” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (emphasis
added); see, e.g., Collier v. President of Stanford, 2023 WL 3035392, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 19, 2023) (revoking IFP status where the plaintiff “failed to state a valid
claim” and “filed multiple convoluted and frivolous” documents).
Therefore, because Simmons’ pleadings fail to state a claim for relief, his
IFP status is REVOKED, and this action is DISMISSED as to all Defendants,
pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B). 	After entry of this Order, the Clerk is directed
to enter Judgment and then close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 30, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 221 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3
PageID.<pageID>