Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chun v. Simpson

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 9, 2015

CURTIS PAUL CHUN, Plaintiff,
v.
VICTORIA SIMPSON, ET AL., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE; DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE CLAIM FOR THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge

On November 30, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Curtis Chun (“Plaintiff”) filed, inter alia, his Second Amended Complaint and his Motion for Leave to Amend the Claim for the Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”). [Dkt. nos. 45 (Motion to Amend), 47 (Second Amended Complaint).] The Court has considered these matters without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) and (e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s submissions and the relevant legal authority, this Court HEREBY DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE, and DENIES the Motion to Amend. In light of these rulings, all of Plaintiff’s other pending motions are HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT. This means that all of Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed, and he is not permitted to amend his complaint. Plaintiff therefore does not have any lawsuit pending in this court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action to address harmful emissions that he alleges travel from his neighbors’ home to his home. Defendants Victoria Simpson, Veronica Simpson, Valerie Simpson, Romeo Simpson, and John Doe, who Plaintiff describes as the boyfriend of one of the Simpsons, (collectively “Defendants”) are either his neighbors or frequent visitors to his neighbors’ home. Defendants’ actions, including, inter alia, smoking cigarettes, allegedly create the emissions that travel to Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges that he is particularly susceptible to injuries caused by Defendants’ emissions because of his disability - Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (“MCS”).

The relevant factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in this Court’s: May 5, 2015 Order Dismissing Complaint and Denying Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“5/5/15 Order”); [dkt. no. 9;] and September 28, 2015 Order Dismissing Amended Complaint and Denying Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“9/28/15 Order”) [dkt. no. 32]. This Court will only repeat the background that is relevant to the matters currently before it.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed on September 14, 2015, contained twelve numbered charges. [Dkt. no. 24 at 48-55.] All twelve charges were state law claims. See 9/28/15 Order at 11. Plaintiff also alleged a number of federal law claims, none of which survived the screening process. This Court noted that it was unclear whether the Amended Complaint alleged a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), but this Court concluded that, even if the Amended Complaint did allege an ADA claim, the claim failed as a matter of law. This Court dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice because Plaintiff’s original Complaint, [filed 3/27/15 (dkt. no. 1), ] contained an ADA claim, and the 5/5/15 Order gave Plaintiff notice of the defects in the claim, but he failed to cure the defects in the Amended Complaint. [9/28/15 Order at 6-7.]

As in the original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleged a claim under the Clean Air Act. In the 9/28/15 Order, this Court stated that it may be possible for Plaintiff to bring a citizen suit under the Clean Air act against Defendants for violating a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”). However, this Court concluded that Plaintiff’s Clear Air Act claim - as written in the Amended Complaint - failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This Court therefore dismissed Plaintiff’s Clean Air Act with leave to amend. [Id. at 7-10.]

The Amended Complaint also attempted to allege claims that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiff’s rights under: the United States Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment; the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”); and Title VII of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”). However, this Court dismissed those claims because Plaintiff did not allege those claims in his original Complaint, and the 5/5/15 Order did not give Plaintiff leave to add new claims. [Id. at 10-11.]

Because this Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims, it also dismissed the state law claims in the Amended Complaint because this Court did not have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), and it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. [Id. at 11-12.] Thus, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Clean Air Act claim and his state law claims with leave to amend. This Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if he wished to make any other changes (such as adding new claims), he had to file a motion for leave to amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). [Id. at 12-13.]

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint contains the same twelve state law claims alleged in the Amended Complaint. [Second Amended Complaint at 48-55.] Plaintiff also alleges a claim for the violation of the Fourth Amendment and a Clean Air Act claim. In addition, the Second Amended Complaint contains citations to, inter alia, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) and Title VII of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”). The Motion to Amend that Plaintiff filed with the Second Amended Complaint apparently explains the changes that he made to the Amended Complaint, and seeks leave to make amendments beyond the amendment of the Clean Air Act claim authorized in the 9/28/15 Order.

DISCUSSION

I. Screening Process

The standard that this Court applies when screening a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is set ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.