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) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUR-REPLY, (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS KARIN HOLMA AND
LISA CATALDO’S MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND (3) DISMISSING
DEFENDANTS HOLMA AND
CATALDO WITH PREJUDICE
On December 22, 2025, the Court dismissed with leave to amend certain
claims asserted by Plaintiff Kelvin Simmons against the “State Defendants”,
including Defendants Karin Holma and Lisa Cataldo (Holma and Cataldo, referred
to herein as the “Moving Defendants”). 	In particular, the claims for monetary
damages against the Moving Defendants were dismissed on the ground of judicial
immunity because both Moving Defendants are judicial officers of the State of
Hawai‘i and all of their alleged acts related to the judicial process. 	The Court
further explained that, to the extent Simmons filed an amended complaint, he must
advance plain statements concerning the specific action or inaction of a specific
defendant and how the same violated a specific legal right.
On January 5, 2026, Simmons filed an Amended Complaint against an array
of Defendants, including the Moving Defendants, other alleged judicial and State
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

2
officers, and “private” actors. 	Dkt. No. 186. 	On January 20, 2026, the Moving
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing, among other
things, that any claims against them are barred by judicial immunity and/or fail to
state a claim. 	Dkt. No. 202. 	Simmons opposes dismissal and also seeks leave to
file a “sur-reply” in support of his opposition. 	Dkt. No. 219.
Upon review, the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 202, is GRANTED because
the claims against the Moving Defendants are clearly deficient in various respects.
First, any claim for monetary damages is barred by judicial immunity because, to
the extent conduct can be construed from the vague allegations of the Amended
Complaint, it relates to the judicial process pursued by Judges Holma and Cataldo.
Second, any claim for declaratory and/or injunctive relief is deficient because the
Amended Complaint fails to allege any specific conduct of the Moving
Defendants, as required. 	In fact, this deficiency—a failure to allege specific
conduct committed by a specific Defendant—plagues all of the claims in the
Amended Complaint. 	Further, because Simmons has been advised of the need to
allege claims in compliance with the foregoing and failed to do so, leave to amend
is not warranted here. 	Therefore, for the reasons discussed more fully below, the
claims against the Moving Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Simmons’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED.
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

3
BACKGROUND1
On December 22, 2025, the Court (1) granted in part and denied in part the
State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (2) dismissed the Complaint with leave to
amend, and (3) denied a lengthy list of motions Simmons filed seeking various
forms of non-dispositive relief. 	Dkt. No. 185. 	As pertinent here, the State
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted to the extent it sought dismissal of
claims for monetary damages against the Moving Defendants, i.e., Judges Holma
and Cataldo, on the ground that such claims were barred by judicial immunity.
Specifically, the Court found that, in the Complaint, all of the alleged acts of the
Moving Defendants related to the judicial process. 	Nonetheless, the Court
permitted Simmons, a litigant proceeding without counsel and without prior
guidance, leave to amend the Complaint. 	The Court warned, however, that,
should Simmons choose to amend, he must offer short and plain statements of,
among other things, exactly what each defendant did or failed to do, the name of
the specific defendant who so acted or failed to act, and how such action or
inaction resulted in the violation of a legal right.
1 The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the Background of this case, as set forth in the
December 22, 2025 Order. 	Dkt. No. 185 at 2-7. 	This Order continues the Background from
where the December 22, 2025 Order left-off.
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

4
On January 5, 2026, Simmons filed the Amended Complaint—the operative
pleading in this case. 	Dkt. No. 186. 	The Amended Complaint names at least 13
Defendants, including the Moving Defendants, three other Judges of the State of
Hawai‘i, the Attorney General and three Deputy Attorneys General of the State of
Hawai‘i, and three “private” actors, along with up to 20 “Doe” Defendants.
According to Simmons, the “gravamen of this action is a defense-confirmed
Poison Origin/Poison Tree sequence[,]” with the “poison origin” being an
unidentified “jurisdictionally defective initiating act in the District Court of the
First Circuit—Case No. 1DRC-23-0006533[.]” 	Id. at 3.2 	From this, Simmons
asserts five claims for (1) denial of due process, (2) disability discrimination, (3)
violation of the Supremacy Clause, (4) civil conspiracy, and (5) retaliation.
Simmons also seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. 	Although the
Amended Complaint is unclear, arguably, these claims and forms of relief are
asserted against all Defendants.
On January 20, 2026, the Moving Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.3 	Dkt. No. 202. 	They argue that the Amended Complaint
2 Because the paragraphs and pages of the Amended Complaint are not sequentially or
consecutively numbered, the Court cites to page numbers in the top-right corner of said
document instead, e.g., “Page 3 of 31”. 	The Court does the same with Simmons’ other filings.
3 As of this date, the docket for this proceeding does not reflect execution of service of the
summons on many of the named Defendants.
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

5
should be dismissed without further leave to amend because: (1) Simmons fails to
offer short and plain statements of his claims in compliance with the December 22,
2025 Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) claims for monetary
damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (3) claims for injunctive relief
are barred by the Ex Parte Young doctrine, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); (4) claims are
barred by qualified immunity; and (5) any claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
fails to state a claim.
Simmons has filed a response to the motion to dismiss. 	Dkt. No. 216.
Liberally construing the same, Simmons argues that the motion to dismiss attempts
to “[r]eopen issues” already litigated and “ignore[es]” the Amended Complaint.
Id. at 8-9. 	Simmons further argues that the “poison origin” of a State litigation
was “[tr]riggered” by a filing—identified only as “Dkt. 11”—that “[i]njected
federal jurisdictional issues into the state proceeding”. 	Id. at 10. 	Simmons also
argues that judicial immunity does not shield “non-judicial acts”, “administrative
conduct”, and “actions taken without jurisdiction”. 	Id. at 15. 	Presumably as
examples of these matters, Simmons appears to contend that Judge Holma is not
protected by judicial immunity because a “judgment” and “writ of possession” she
entered are “void”. 	Id. at 15-18. 	As for Judge Cataldo, Simmons asserts that she
is not entitled to immunity because, in denying “reinstatement relief”, she
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

6
“[p]reserve[ed] the effects of the void writ” and “[r]einforc[ed] the unlawful
enforcement outcome”. 	Id. at 23-24. 	Simmons continues that his “claims target
post-trigger conduct”, including unidentified “[p]rocedural obstruction”, “[r]ecord
manipulation”, and “[a]dministrative interference”. 	Id. at 27.
On February 19, 2026, the Moving Defendants replied to Simmons’
response. 	Dkt. No. 218. 	The Moving Defendants argue that: the response asserts
“new allegations and claims” that should be disregarded; such “new” matters, if
considered, do not cure the deficiencies with the Amended Complaint; they are
entitled to judicial immunity; and the Amended Complaint should be dismissed
with prejudice. 	Id. at 2.
One day later, on February 20, Simmons moved for leave to file a sur-reply.
Dkt. No. 219. 	Simmons asserts that the Moving Defendants reply (1)
“[c]haracterizes” the response as “introducing new allegations”, (2) “[r]eframes the
structural posture established by EO 185, and (3) “[n]arrows” the “constitutional
discussion….” 	Id. at 2. 	The motion for leave to file a sur-reply, Dkt. No. 219, is
DENIED. 	Contrary to Simmons’ suggestions, the reply brief merely addresses
arguments made in his opposition—many of which the Moving Defendants
accurately describe as making “new” allegations or, at least, embellishing
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

7
allegations made in the Amended Complaint. 	As a result, there is simply no basis
to allow further briefing in this case.
With briefing, therefore, complete, the Court now addresses the motion to
dismiss.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the Court to
dismiss a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Rule 12(b)(6) is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). 	Pursuant to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “[t]o survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 	556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 	A court “must
accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.” 	Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra, 898
F.3d 879, 886-887 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted).
When a complaint fails to state a plausible claim, leave to amend should be
given when “justice so requires.” 	Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). 	Justice does not require
leave to amend when (1) it would prejudice an opposing party, (2) it is sought in
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

8
bad faith, (3) it would produce an undue delay in litigation, (4) it would be futile,
or (5) there has been repeated failure to cure a deficiency. 	Abagninin v. AMVAC
Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.
Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION
As mentioned, the Moving Defendants request dismissal of the Amended
Complaint on various grounds, including judicial immunity and the failure to
follow pleading instructions in the December 22, 2025 Order. 	Because these
matters are ones previously addressed and identified for Simmons to cure and/or
follow, the Court begins its discussion below with the same.
A. 	Judicial Immunity
In the December 22, 2025 Order, the Court explained to Simmons that his
claims for monetary damages against the Moving Defendants were subject to
dismissal because all of their alleged conduct was related to the judicial process.
Dkt. No. 185 at 13-14. 	The Amended Complaint does nothing to remedy this
deficiency. 	Instead, if anything, the Amended Complaint takes a step back from
the already deficient Complaint. 	Specifically, in the Complaint, Simmons at least,
on occasion, alleged that a specific Defendant committed a specific act, such as
“scheduling a hearing”, “refusing to rule”, and “issu[ing]” orders. 	Dkt. No. 1 at 4-
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

9
6. 	In the Amended Complaint, however, Simmons does not do even that.
Instead, he groups all five of the so-called “Judicial Defendants” and alleges that
they acted. 	It is entirely unclear, however, which Defendant committed any
particular act or committed no act. 	This is clearly deficient, especially as it relates
to the Moving Defendants. 	Second, the acts alleged—“void assignment, record
transmission, and docket activity”—are hopelessly vague. 	See Dkt. No. 186 at 12.
Even liberally construed, though, they concern acts related to the judicial process
within the context of Simmons’ claims, given that “docket” activity, “assignment”,
and “record” transmission clearly all relate to judicial matters, whether or not
Simmons properly characterizes them as “administrative and ministerial”.
In his response, Simmons attempts to ameliorate the vague and unspecific
allegations of the Amended Complaint by, at best, supplementing the same with
further factual enhancement. 	For example, unlike in the Amended Complaint,
Simmons contends that a specific Defendant—Judge Holma—committed a
specific act—entering a “void” judgment. 	Dkt. No. 216 at 15. 	Similarly, he
asserts that Judge Cataldo denied a “reinstatement” request. 	Id. at 22. 	As an
initial matter, because these allegations were not made in the Amended Complaint,
Simmons would need to seek leave to amend to pursue them further in this case.
Leave to amend, however, is unnecessary because the allegations are clearly
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

10
insufficient as they are of the same “classic fare” that is barred by judicial
immunity. 	See Dkt. No. 185 at 14 (citing In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th
Cir. 2002)). 	To the extent Simmons attempts to avoid this clear fact by
contending that the judgment or denials entered by the Moving Defendants were
“void”, and, thus, presumably, “in the clear absence of jurisdiction”, this too fails,
given that Simmons provides not one factual allegation to support the suggestion
that any act by the Moving Defendants in the course of the judicial process was
“void” or committed in the absence of jurisdiction.4
Therefore, in light of the vague and grouped allegations in the Amended
Complaint, and the clear deficiencies with Simmons’ allegations in the response,
the Moving Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity from any claim arguably
asserted against them for monetary damages. 	Simmons is also not entitled to
further leave to amend any such claim(s) because he has had opportunities, both in
the Amended Complaint and the response, to cure the identified deficiencies, and
has failed to do so.
4 Similarly, to the extent Simmons believes that the Moving Defendants’ acts were “void” due to
the so-called “poison chain” he has concocted, see Dkt. No. 216 at 22, again, he provides not one
factual allegation to support any such “poison[ous]” charge.
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

11
B. 	Basic Pleading Instructions
In the December 22, 2025 Order, the Court explained to Simmons that,
should he choose to file an amended complaint, he was required to follow basic
pleading requirements by alleging short and plain statements of his claims. 	Dkt.
No. 185 at 16-17. 	Specifically, he was required to state the legal right violated,
the name of the specific defendant(s) who violated a right, exactly what each
defendant did or did not do and when, how the action or inaction violated a right,
and the specific injury suffered as a result. 	As mentioned, Simmons elected to file
an amended complaint. 	He did not, however, come close to following the above-
mentioned pleading requirements with respect to any of his claims against any of
the Defendants and, as pertinent here, with respect to the Moving Defendants.
Notably, in addition to claims for monetary damages, which have been
discussed and dismissed above, Simmons also seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief. 	Those requests and claims, though, are replete with generalized and
conclusory allegations. 	For example, Simmons alleges that “Defendants’ post-
notice conduct violated the Supremacy Clause” and that he seeks “injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendants from continuing retaliatory, obstructive, or discriminatory
conduct arising from the poison-origin foundation….” 	Dkt. No. 185 at 22-23.
Simmons also alleges that “Defendants engaged in non-judicial/administrative
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

12
interference”, “Defendants engaged in deliberate indifference”, “state actors
proceeded with post-jurisdiction actions”, “[s]tate and private actors coordinated
post-notice to advance and enforce a defense-confirmed poisoned foundation”, and
“Defendant retaliated through post-jurisdiction procedural maneuvers”. 	Id. at 14-
16.
The deficiencies with the foregoing 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 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.5 	As a result,
5 So the record is clear, these failures are not cured by the allegations in Simmons’ opposition
brief that Judges Holma and Cataldo committed certain specific acts, such as entering a “void”
judgment. 	As discussed, there is no factual allegation, either in the Amended Complaint or the
response, even suggesting how the judgment and orders could be considered “void”, other than
Simmons’ apparent disagreement with the same. 	Basing any claim on such assertions,
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

13
beyond judicial immunity, all claims and relief sought against the Moving
Defendants must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 	Further, because
Simmons was notified of the foregoing pleadings requirements and failed in every
respect, he is not entitled to an additional opportunity to amend.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 202, is
GRANTED, and Defendants Holma and Cataldo are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE from this action.6
Simmons’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply, Dkt. No. 219, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 30, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Kelvin Simmons v. Judge Karin L. Holma, et al; Civil No. 25-00307 DKW-WRP;
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUR-REPLY, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS KARIN HOLMA AND LISA
CATALDO’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (3) DISMISSING
DEFENDANTS HOLMA AND CATALDO WITH PREJUDICE
therefore, would not bring the same to the level of plausibility required by federal pleadings
rules.
6 Because it is unnecessary, the Court does not address any other reason for dismissal raised by
the Moving Defendants.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00307-DKW-WRP Document 220 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 13
PageID.<pageID>