Meafou v. State of Hawaii et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ISSACHAR TIMOTHY MEAFOU,
#A6005734,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 25-00460 DKW-WRP
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Issachar Meafou’s First Amended
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (FAC) brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
ECF No. 11. In the FAC, Meafou alleges that ten prison officials violated his
rights by using excessive force (Count I), threatening his safety (Count II), and
denying him adequate medical care (Count III) during his pretrial detention at the
Oahu Community Correctional Center (OCCC).2 Id. at PageID.7-13. After
1 Meafou remains a pretrial detainee at Oahu Community Correctional Center. See ECF No. 11
at PageID.59; VINE, https://vinelink.vineapps.com/search/HI/Person (select “ID Number”; enter
“A6005734”; and select “Search”) (last visited Feb. 27, 2026).
2 Meafou names as defendants: (1) Adult Corrections Officer (ACO) Levi Kaakau; (2) ACO Jeff
Tai; (3) ACO Kainoa Mallot; (4) ACO John Doe; (5) ACO Pili; (6) Sergeant (Sgt.) Larry
Domingo; (7) Deputy Warden Lance Rabacal; (8) Nurse Matt Huber; (9) Case Manager Chad
Kahale; and (10) ACO Villanueva. ECF No. 11 at PageID.53-56. Meafou names all the prison
officials in their individual capacities only. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

2
conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court DISMISSES
the FAC with leave to amend. If Meafou wants to proceed, he must file an
amended pleading that cures the noted deficiencies in his claims on or before
March 31, 2026. Alternatively, instead of filing an amended pleading, Meafou
may inform the Court in writing on or before March 31, 2026 that he would like to
voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1), and such a dismissal will not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).3
I. 	BACKGROUND4
While Meafou was a pretrial detainee at OCCC, ACO Kaakau moved an
inmate named Jordan Aukai into his cell. ECF No. 11 at PageID.60. Aukai is a
known member of a security threat group (STG)5. Id.
On May 21, 2025, ACO Villanueva allowed an unnamed “gang leader” from
OCCC’s administrative segregation unit to meet and speak with general population
inmates during a lockdown. Id. At some point, the gang leader “put a hit” on
Meafou. Id.
3 In general, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from filing a civil action in forma pauperis
if he or she has on three or more occasions brought an action in federal court that was dismissed
as frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4 The FAC alleges the following facts, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of
screening. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2014).
5 The term “STG” is used to designate some formal and informal prison groups—for example,
prison gangs. See DePaepe v. White, 2020 WL 3472907, at *2 n.3 (D. Haw. June 24, 2020).
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

3
The next day, Aukai “attacked and stabbed” Meafou in a cell. Id. at
PageID.59. ACO Kaakau approached the cell, but he did not intervene. Id. When
a response team arrived, ACO John Doe held the cell door open a crack. Id. ACO
Tai then pointed a can of mace at Meafou’s face as Aukai was choking him. Id.
Meafou dove out of the way, and ACO Tai handcuffed Meafou’s hands behind his
back. Id. The handcuffs were “twisted” before ACO Tai put them on Meafou
resulting in restricted circulation. Id. at PageID.61. The handcuffs cut Meafou’s
wrist, and his palms went numb. Id. ACO Tai “shove[d]” Meafou toward the
medical unit while yelling “sanction[ed] hit.” Id. at PageID.59. ACO Kaakau,
ACO Mallot, ACO John Doe, ACO Pili, Sgt. Domingo, and Deputy Warden
Rabacal all stood by and watched while Meafou left the housing unit. Id.
Meafou’s resulting injuries included puncture wounds near his left temple
and between his eyes, blurry vision, and a bruised shin. Id. Upon arriving at the
medical unit, Meafou asked to be taken to the hospital for stitches. Id. at
PageID.61. Nurse Huber rinsed the wounds on Meafou’s face with water and said
that Meafou had “just a cut.” Id. According to Meafou, ACO Tai prevented Nurse
Huber from thoroughly examining his wounds. Id. Meafou was taken out of the
medical unit, while still in handcuffs, and Nurse Huber did not tend to the wounds
on Meafou’s palms or his “busted finger.” Id. Meafou was in pain for three days,
and his finger remains “busted” and “deformed.” Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

4
The day after the incident, Meafou spoke with Case Manager Kahale. Id. at
PageID.60. Kahale told Meafou that the prior day’s events were “a green light”
related to “ratting” and “game room robberies.” Id. Meafou told Kahale that he
wanted to be housed “somewhere safe and out of trouble,” but Kahale discouraged
him from seeking protective custody. Id. Kahale assigned Meafou to housing
module 2, where Meafou experienced stress, humiliation, and mistreatment by
ACO Tai and other unidentified staff members. Id.
Meafou commenced this lawsuit by signing his original Complaint that the
Court received on October 27, 2025. Id. Meafou paid the required fees on
December 15, 2025, ECF No. 6, and the Court dismissed the original Complaint on
December 23, 2025, ECF No. 7.
The Court received the FAC on January 20, 2026, ECF No. 11, and Meafou
filed a letter clarifying his claims on February 17, 2026, ECF No. 13. In the FAC,
Meafou alleges that Defendants violated his rights by using excessive force (Count
I), threatening his safety (Count II), and denying him adequate medical care (Count
III). ECF No. 11 at PageID.7-13. Meafou seeks $925,000 in damages. Id. at
PageID.62.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

5
II. 	STATUTORY SCREENING
The Court is required to screen all prisoner pleadings against government
officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). See Byrd v. Phx. Police Dep’t,
885 F.3d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 2018). Claims or complaints that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek damages from defendants who are
immune from suit must be dismissed. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27
(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.
2010).
Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) involves the same standard of review
as that used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Rosati v.
Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Under this standard, 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A claim is “plausible” when the
facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief
from a specific defendant for specific misconduct. See id.
In conducting this screening, the Court liberally construes pro se litigants’
pleadings and resolves all doubts in their favor. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The Court must grant leave to amend if it
appears the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint. See Lopez, 203 F.3d
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

6
at 1130. When a claim cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal with prejudice is
appropriate. See Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of Los Angeles, 729 F.3d 1189, 1196
(9th Cir. 2013).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Legal Framework for Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
“Section 1983 provides a cause of action against ‘[e]very person who, under
color of’ law deprives another of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution.’” Cornel v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting
42 U.S.C. § 1983) (alteration in original). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated; and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Park v. City & County of Honolulu, 952 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2020).
B. 	Excessive Force
Meafou alleges in Count I that ACO Tai used excessive force on May 22,
2025, and that ACO Kaakau, ACO Mallot, ACO John Doe, ACO Pili, Sgt.
Domingo, and Deputy Warden Rabacal saw ACO Tai shove him while he was
handcuffed and did nothing about it. ECF No. 11 at PageID.59.
The Supreme Court has stated that “the appropriate standard for a pretrial
detainee’s excessive force claim is solely an objective one.” Kingsley v.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

7
Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). Under this standard, “a pretrial detainee
must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was
objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 396-97. Objective reasonableness turns on the
facts and circumstances of each case. Id. at 397. Relevant considerations include,
among other things, the relationship between the need for the use of force and the
amount of force used, the extent of the plaintiff’s injury, any effort by the officer to
temper or limit the amount of force, the severity of the security problem at issue,
the threat reasonably perceived by the officer, and whether the plaintiff was
actively resisting. Id.
Here, Meafou alleges that ACO Tai pointed a can of mace at his face, put
him in handcuffs, and “shove[d]” him toward the medical unit. ECF No. 11 at
PageID.59. That is not enough to state an excessive force claim.
Regarding the mace, Meafou does not say whether ACO Tai gave any verbal
instructions or warnings, or, if so, whether he complied. Meafou also does not
allege whether the mace was deployed, or, if it was, how many times or for how
long. Nor does Meafou allege whether ACO Tai only aimed and/or deployed the
mace at him, whether Aukai was also targeted, or how the two men reacted or were
impacted. In other words, even the mere deployment of mace does not necessarily
amount to excessive force. See Brown v. Baudino, 840 F. App’x 263, 263 (9th Cir.
2021) (“The brief use of pepper spray against [pretrial detainee] followed by
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 7 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

8
immediate medical attention was objectively reasonable under the
circumstances.”).
Regarding the handcuffs, although Meafou alleges that the handcuffs were
twisted, restricted circulation, and cut his wrist, he does not allege that ACO Tai
was aware of these facts. For example, Meafou does not allege that he was in
visible pain, that he ever complained to ACO Tai about the handcuffs or his
sensitivity, or that he asked ACO Tai to loosen the restraints. Cf. Shaw v. City of
Redondo Beach, 2005 WL 6117549, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005) (“In those
tight handcuffing cases in which courts have found excessive force, the arrestee
was either in visible pain, complained of pain, alerted the officer to pre-existing
injuries, sustained more severe injuries, was in handcuffs for a longer period of
time, asked to have the handcuffs loosened or released, and/or alleged other forms
of abusive conduct in conjunction with the tight handcuffing.”).
To the extent Meafou alleges that ACO Tai “shove[d]” him toward the
medical unit, he does not describe where on his body he was shoved, how many
times he was shoved, the strength of any shove, any resulting injury, or how he
responded. Cf. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (“That is not to say that
every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.”).
Unless and until Meafou states a plausible excessive force claim against ACO Tai,
his claims against ACO Kaakau, ACO Mallot, ACO John Doe, ACO Pili, Sgt.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 8 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

9
Domingo, and Deputy Warden Rabacal grounded on their alleged failure to act
cannot proceed. See Claiborne v. Blauser, No. 2:10-cv-2427 LKK EFB P, 2013
WL 1384995, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2013) (“A defendant is liable for failing to
intervene only where there has been an underlying constitutional violation
warranting intervention.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL
1963515 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2013). Meafou’s excessive force claims in Count I
are therefore DISMISSED.
C. 	Threat to Safety
Meafou alleges in Count II that ACO Kaakau, ACO Villanueva, Case
Manager Kahale threatened his safety. ECF No. 11 at PageID.60.
To establish a threat-to-safety claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, the
plaintiff must show that:
(1) [t]he defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) [t]hose
conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious
harm; (3) [t]he defendant did not take reasonable available measures
to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the
circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct
obvious; and (4) [b]y not taking such measures, the defendant caused
the plaintiff’s injuries.
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(formatting and footnoted omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 9 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

10
“With respect to the third element, the defendant's conduct must be
objectively unreasonable, a test that will necessarily turn on the facts and
circumstances of each particular case.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and
citations omitted). A pretrial detainee who asserts a threat-to-safety claim must
“prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to
reckless disregard.” Id.
Meafou alleges that ACO Kaakau decided to house Aukai with him, and that
Aukai later attacked him. Meafou has not alleged facts showing, however, that
ACO Kaakau’s housing decision placed him at substantial risk of harm and that a
reasonable officer would have appreciated the risk. Nothing in the FAC suggests
that Aukai was an inherent threat to Meafou. Meafou does not allege that Aukai
attacked other cellmates, and, even if he had, Meafou alleges no facts suggesting
that a reasonable officer would have appreciated that Aukai might also attack him.
To the extent Meafou alleges that ACO Villanueva allowed a “known gang
leader” to converse with general population inmates during a lockdown, again,
Meafou fails to allege facts demonstrating a substantial risk of harm that a
reasonable officer would have appreciated. Although Meafou alleges that the gang
leader “put a hit” on him, he does not allege any facts suggesting that a reasonable
officer would have recognized the risk of this happening.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 10 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

11
Finally, regarding Case Manager Kahale’s decision to house Meafou in
Module 2 after the incident, Meafou has not alleged facts showing that doing so
created a substantial risk of serious harm. Meafou’s vague references to
“humiliation, verbal abuse, and mistreatment” are not enough. Nothing in the FAC
suggests that Meafou’s safety was threatened in Module 2. Meafou’s threat-to-
safety claims in Count II are therefore DISMISSED.
D. 	Medical Care
Meafou alleges in Count III that Nurse Huber and ACO Tai denied him
adequate medical care immediately after the incident on May 22, 2025. ECF No.
11 at PageID.61.
Medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees also arise under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Gordon v. County of Orange,
888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018). “[C]laims for violations of the right to
adequate medical care brought by pretrial detainees against individual
defendants . . . must be evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference
standard.” Id. at 1124-25.
A pretrial detainee asserting a failure-to-provide-adequate-medical-care
claim must show that: (1) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect
to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) those conditions put
the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) the defendant did not
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 11 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

12
take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable
official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (4)
by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Id. at
1125.
Regarding the third element, “the defendant’s conduct must be objectively
unreasonable, a test that will necessarily turn[ ] on the facts and circumstances of
each particular case.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in
original). The “mere lack of due care by a state official does not deprive an
individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment”; the
plaintiff must “prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—
something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
After Meafou arrived at the medical unit, Nurse Huber rinsed the wounds on
his face with water and said that they were “just . . . cut[s].” ECF No. 11 at
PageID.61. While Meafou may think that Nurse Huber also should have sent him
to the hospital, he has not alleged facts showing that not doing so was medically
unacceptable under the circumstances. See Breaux v. Med. Staff, 2024 WL
5706269, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024). To the extent Meafou states that Nurse
Huber also “did not tend to the wounds on [his] palms or [his] busted finger,” id.,
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 12 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

13
Meafou does not allege that he alerted Nurse Huber to these injuries, nor does he
allege that Huber ignoring these injuries placed him at substantial risk of serious
harm.
Meafou also alleges that ACO Tai “prevented” Nurse Huber from
thoroughly checking his wounds. ECF No. 11 at PageID.61. While interference
with medical care can amount to deliberate indifference, an inmate must also show
that the interference resulted in further injury. See Dampier v. King Cnty. Jail,
2022 WL 17655879, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2022), report and
recommendation adopted, No. C22-1401-JCC-SKV, 2022 WL 17601166 (W.D.
Wash. Dec. 12, 2022). Here, Meafou does not specify how ACO Tai interfered
with his medical care, other than by saying to Meafou while laughing, “[you] no
need nothing, it’s just a scratch, don’t worry you still handsome.” ECF No. 11 at
PageID.61. Nothing suggests that ACO Tai’s statement prevented Nurse Huber
from providing care. In addition, Meafou does not allege that ACO Tai’s
statement resulted in further injury. Meafou’s medical care claims are therefore
DISMISSED.
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 13 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

14
IV. 	LEAVE TO AMEND
The FAC, ECF No. 11, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Meafou must
file any amended pleading on or before March 31, 2026. Meafou may not expand
his claims beyond those already alleged herein or add new claims, such as those
against individual corrections officers, without explaining how any new claims
relate to the claims alleged in the FAC. Claims that do not properly relate to those
in the FAC are subject to dismissal.
Meafou must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Rules for the District of Hawaii. Local Rule 10.4 requires that an amended
complaint be complete in itself, without reference to any prior pleading. An
amended complaint must be short and plain, comply with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and be submitted on the Court’s prisoner civil rights
form. See LR99.2(a). An amended complaint will supersede the preceding
complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th
Cir. 2015). Defendants not renamed and claims not realleged in an amended
complaint may be deemed voluntarily dismissed. See Lacey v. Maricopa County,
693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 14 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

15
V. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
If Meafou fails to file an amended complaint or is unable to amend his
claims to cure their deficiencies, this dismissal may count as a “strike” under
28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Under this “3-strikes” provision, a prisoner may not bring a
civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis,
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
VI. 	CONCLUSION
(1) The Court DISMISSES the FAC, ECF No. 11, with leave to amend.
(2) If Meafou wants to proceed with this action, he must file an amended
pleading that cures the noted deficiencies in his claims on or before March 31,
2026.
(3) ALTERNATIVELY, instead of filing an amended pleading, Meafou may
inform the Court in writing on or before March 31, 2026 that he would like to
voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1), and such a dismissal will not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 15 of 16
PageID.<pageID>

16
(4) Failure to comply with these deadlines may result in AUTOMATIC
DISMISSAL of this suit without further notice, and Meafou may incur a strike
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
(5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Meafou a blank prisoner civil rights
complaint form so that he can comply with this order if he elects to file an
amended pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.
Issachar Timothy Meafou v. State of Hawaii, et al.; Civil No. 25-00460
DKW-WRP; ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00460-DKW-WRP Document 15 Filed 03/03/26 Page 16 of 16
PageID.<pageID>