United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Michael Seabright, Chief United States District Judge
the court is pro se Plaintiff Kristopher Michael
Sharrott's prisoner civil rights Complaint brought
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42
U.S.C. § 12132, et seq. Compl., ECF No. 1.
Sharrott alleges that the Halawa Correctional Facility (HCF)
“ADA Compliance team, ” Medical Administrator Dr.
Mee, the State of Hawaii, John and Jane Does 1-20, HCF
Medical unit supervisors and staff (collectively, Defendants)
violated state and federal law when they failed to provide an
“ADA Code” shower at HCF, allegedly causing him
to slip, fall, and injure himself.
following reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a), with leave granted
court must conduct a pre-Answer screening of all
prisoners' pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). 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).
under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) involves the same
standard of review as that used under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 12(b)(6), 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 omitted).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. The “mere possibility of
misconduct” or an “unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation” falls short
of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at
678-79; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“requires only ‘a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell
Atl., 550 U.S. at 555 (citations and internal quotations
marks omitted). Under this standard, the court must accept as
true the allegations of the complaint, Erickson, 551
U.S. at 94, and construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Davis
v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
litigants' pleadings must be liberally construed and all
doubts should be resolved in their favor. 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,
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130, but if a claim or complaint
cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal with prejudice is
appropriate. Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of L.A.,
729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
alleges that Defendants violated the ADA when they
negligently failed to ensure that the HCF shower unit was
“up to code (ADA code).” Compl., ECF No. 1,
PageID #6 (Count I). Sharrott asserts that the ADA requires
curbless entries and exits for prison showers and that HCF
has only an allegedly noncompliant tiled ramp. He says the
ramp is slippery and lacks grip tape; he claims that he fell
exiting the shower on an unidentified date and is
“permanently injured ” because of this allegedly
noncompliant shower. Id., PageID #7-8.
names all Defendants in their individual and official
capacities and seeks “[a]ll relief possible, ”
including requiring HCF to comply with the ADA and punitive
damages. Id., PageID #9.
state a claim under § 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 the color of
state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right,
“within the meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does
an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative
act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required
to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is
made.'” Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd.
of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.
plaintiff must also allege that he suffered a specific injury
as a result of a particular defendant's conduct and an
affirmative link between the injury and the violation of his
rights. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436
U.S. 658, 692 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
371-72, 377 (1976).