Sharrott v. Halawa Prison Ada Compliance Team
KRISTOPHER MICHAEL SHARROTT, #A4020207, Plaintiff,
HALAWA PRISON ADA COMPLIANCE TEAM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court are Plaintiff Kristopher Sharrott's "Motion to Grant Leave to Amend All Claims of this Case That Have Been Dismissed Without Prejudice" ("Motion to Amend Complaint"), ECF No. 22, and second amended complaint ("SAC"), ECF No. 29. Plaintiff names Halawa Correctional Facility ("HCF") officials L. Lee Zidek, G. Dano, M. Naeole, Dr. Mee, and John and Jane Does 1-20 as Defendants in their individual and official capacities (collectively, "Defendants"). In the SAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as futile and the SAC is DISMISSED with prejudice. This action shall proceed with Sharrott's ADA claims as alleged against the Hawaii Department of Public Safety ("DPS") in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), ECF No. 13, which remains the operative pleading.
Plaintiff commenced this action on December 10, 2018, when he filed the original Complaint. ECF No. 1. He is a convicted prisoner incarcerated at HCF and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.
A. Original Complaint
In the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants[1] violated federal and state law when they negligently failed to ensure that the HCF shower was compliant with standards allegedly required by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq. He claimed that this failure caused him to fall while exiting the HCF shower, resulting in permanent injury.
On January 14, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's original Complaint with leave granted to amend. See Order (1) Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend and (2) Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 11 ("January 14, 2019 Order"). The court first held that Plaintiff cannot state a claim against individual capacity Defendants, or for punitive damages, under the ADA, and dismissed these claims with prejudice. Id., PageID #47. The court next held that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show that official capacity Defendants violated his rights under the ADA, and dismissed these claims without prejudice. Id., PageID #48. Last, the court held that, to the extent that Plaintiff alleged claims under the Eighth Amendment, he failed to allege sufficient facts to show that Defendants violated his rights thereunder, and dismissed such claims without prejudice and leave granted to amend. Id., PageID #53.
B. First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff filed the FAC on January 25, 2019. ECF No. 13. After initial review of the FAC, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice based on his explicit concession that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit. See Order, ECF No. 15. After receiving Plaintiff's response, ECF No. 17, the court determined that Plaintiff showed sufficient cause to allow this issue to be determined through adversary proceedings after service. See Order Dismissing Amended Complaint in Part and Directing Service, ECF No. 19, at PageID #100, n.4 ("March 27, 2019 Order").
The court then screened the FAC and determined that Plaintiff stated a claim under the ADA against the DPS. Id., PageID #102. The court dismissed Plaintiff's remaining claims alleging cruel and unusual punishment and the denial of equal protection and due process under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments without prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to allege sufficient facts to state a claim.
The court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the FAC on DPS (and Director Nolan Espinda as its chief executive officer), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j)(2), as limited to Plaintiff's ADA claims. The record does not reflect whether DPS has been served.
C. Second Amended Complaint
On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff moved to amend those claims in the FAC that were dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 22. He filed the SAC on May 6, 2019. The SAC omits Plaintiff's colorable claims under the ADA against DPS that were ordered served, and alleges claims solely under the Eighth and ...