United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MARK ANTHONY SEINA, REG. #13272-097, Plaintiff,
FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER-Honolulu, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
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.
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.
commenced this suit on February 3, 2016, while he was
incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center-Honolulu
(“FDC-Honolulu”). 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
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).
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).
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