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.

Seina v. Federal Detention Center - Honolulu

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

November 15, 2016

MARK ANTHONY SEINA, REG. #13272-097, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER-Honolulu, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

         Before the court is Defendant LaTunya Boyd's Motion to Dismiss and [for] Summary Judgment (“Motion”). ECF No. 52. Boyd seeks dismissal of this prisoner civil rights action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for pro se Plaintiff Mark Anthony Seina's alleged failure to exhaust required prison administrative remedies. Seina has filed an Opposition to the Motion, ECF No. 66, and Boyd has filed a Reply, ECF No. 75.

         The Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing pursuant to LR7.2(d) and LR99.16.2(a) of the Local Rules for the District of Hawaii and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Boyd's Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Seina commenced this suit on February 3, 2016, while he was incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center-Honolulu (“FDC-Honolulu”).[1] Compl., ECF No. 1 (docketed Feb. 5, 2016). Seina broadly alleged that FDC-Honolulu officials were denying him appropriate medical care for his pulmonary arterial hypertension (“PAH”), and also interfered with the practice of his religion.

         On March 7, 2016, the Court screened Seina's Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), dismissed it in part for failure to state a claim, and granted leave to amend. See Order, ECF No. 18. The Court found that Seina stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims in Counts I and VI against Defendants Blackmon, Simon, Smith, and Dayton in their individual capacities, but failed to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (“RFRA”), the First and Fifth Amendments, and in Counts II, III, IV, and V.

         On March 21, 2016, Seina signed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); it was received and docketed the next day. ECF No. 23. The FAC contains considerably more detail than the original Complaint, including a new claim that allegedly occurred after Seina filed the original Complaint. In Count II, Seina alleges Boyd failed to accommodate his PAH-related disability when she refused to provide a DVD player in Seina's housing unit so that he could watch yoga and meditation videos. See id., PageID #174-76.

         On May 19, 2016, the Court dismissed the FAC in part for failure to state a claim. See Order, ECF No. 28. Specifically, the Court dismissed Seina's claims against all natural Defendants named in their official capacities, the United States, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and FDC-Honolulu with prejudice. Id., PageID #238-39. Seina's First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment[2] claims in Counts I, III, IV-VI were dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. Id., PageID #250-65. Seina's allegations against Boyd in Count II, to the extent he alleges Boyd discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, were allowed to proceed. Id., PageID #272-74.

         Although Seina has since attempted to file amended complaints three times, see ECF Nos. 43, 54, 68, his motions were denied because the proposed amended complaints neither cured the noted deficiencies in the FAC, nor complied with local and federal rules of civil procedure. See ECF Nos. 49, 58, and 74. Seina's claim against Boyd in Count II of the FAC is therefore the only remaining claim at issue.

         On May 18, 2016, Seina notified the Court that he would be released from FDC-Honolulu to TJ Mahoney, a private, non-profit residential reentry center (“RRC”) that contracts with the BOP, until his expected supervised release on June 18, 2018. See ECF No. 29; http://www.mahoneyhale.com.

         On or about June 20, 2016, Seina was arrested and returned to FDC-Honolulu. See United States v. Seina, Cr. No. 06-00470 HG, ECF Nos. 76-78.

         On August 9, 2016, Boyd filed the present Motion seeking dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the ADA and summary judgment for Seina's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). ECF No. 52.

         On October 31, 2016, Seina notified the court that he was released from FDC-Honolulu and is residing at Po`ailani, Inc., a residential treatment facility. See http://www.poailani.org.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

         Boyd first raises a facial attack to jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting Seina's allegations under the ADA are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Edison v. United States, 822 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2016); Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004); Malama Makua v. Rumsfeld, 136 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1159 (D. Haw. 2001) (discussing differences between facial and factual attacks to jurisdiction); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (1).

         In reviewing a facial attack, the court accepts the complaint's allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Bartholomew v. Burger King Corp., 21 F.Supp.3d 1089, 1094 (D. Haw. 2014) (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013)). The court may not review extrinsic evidence when considering a facial attack. Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776, 780 (9th Cir. 2014).

         Once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009). That is, the court presumes a lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction proves ...


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.