Grindling v. Martone et al
Filing
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 27 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 10/30/2012. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CHRIS GRINDLING, #A0721079,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FREDERICK MARTONE, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
NO. 1:12-cv-00361 LEK/BMK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 28, 2012, this action was closed pursuant
to Plaintiff’s Motion to Refund Filing Fee Due to Voluntary
Withdrawal of this Case (“Notice of Voluntary Dismissal”).
ECF #21, #22.
See
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint.
mailed October 24, 2012).
ECF #27 (signed October 22,
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff signed and mailed two
documents to this court in the same envelope: (1) his Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal; and (2) his “Motion for Filed Copy of
Complaint.”
See ECF #17 & #18.
The court received and filed
these documents on September 19, 2012.
On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff signed a Motion for
Extension of Time to file Amended Complaint, a Motion to Clarify
Order Dismissing [First Amended Complaint], and a letter
requesting a file-stamped copy of his first amended complaint.
See ECF #16, #19, #20.
These documents were mailed September 19,
and received and filed September 20 and 21, 2012.
On September 27, 2012, the court considered these
documents in order, and because Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal was his first request, directed the Clerk to enter a
notice of voluntary dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a).
Order, ECF #21 (signed September 27, filed and
mailed September 28, 2012, at 9:32 a.m.); #22.
The court further
ordered the Clerk to send Plaintiff copies of his original and
first amended complaints, and denied Plaintiff’s other motions.
The court specifically held that Plaintiff had explicitly moved
for voluntary dismissal of his action, but was not entitled to a
refund of his filing fee.
See ECF #21 PageID #144-147.
On October 3, 2012, the court received Plaintiff’s
proposed second amended complaint.
Plaintiff dated it as signed
on September 18, 2012, but it was not mailed until October 1,
2012, two days after Plaintiff’s action was dismissed.
& #23-1 (mailing documentation).
ECF #23,
The court informed Plaintiff
that it would take no action on the proposed second amended
complaint.
ECF #24.
On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff moved for
reconsideration.
ECF #25 (signed October 2, mailed October 3,
2
2012).
On October 17, 2012, the court denied reconsideration,
finding that Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal was
“unambiguous” and that a fair reading of his “Motion to Refund
Filing Fee Due to Voluntary Withdrawal of this Case” showed that
“Plaintiff did not condition his notice of voluntary dismissal of
this case upon a refund of his filing fee, nor would the court
have agreed to such a condition.”
II.
ECF #26 PageID #169.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff first argues that he “clearly” conditioned
his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on the court refunding his
filing fee, and “clearly” intended the case to continue, because
he filed the proposed second amended complaint before the court
dismissed his action and self-dated it on September 17, 2012.
See Mot., ECF #27 PageID #171-72.
First, Plaintiff’s Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal contained no conditional, “either-or”
language.
Plaintiff vociferously disagreed with this court’s
rulings and complained that they had “no reason[,] logic[,] or
truth.”
See ECF #18, PageID #135.
Plaintiff then strenuously
asserted that he was unable to litigate in this court, stating
that “there is no sense in prosecuting a case with obvious bias.”
Id.
In light of this explicit language, the court found that
Plaintiff’s request for dismissal was unequivocal.
Moreover,
although he asked for a refund of his filing fee in the title,
Plaintiff provided no legal argument or reason why his filing fee
3
should be refunded.
Second, Plaintiff dated the proposed second amended
complaint September 18, not September 17, 2012, as he now claims.
Although due on September 28, 2012, the pleading was mailed
October 1, 2012, two days late and two days after the court had
directed the Clerk to enter Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal.
This document could not, therefore, have alerted the
court that Plaintiff intended to proceed with this action despite
his motion to the contrary filed two weeks earlier.
It appears
likely that Plaintiff received notice that his action had been
dismissed and mailed this document immediately thereafter.
The
court received Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint
fourteen days after his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and four
days after it dismissed Plaintiff’s case.
This timeline does not
support Plaintiff’s argument that he was impliedly disavowing his
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and intending to proceed with his
case when he mailed his proposed second amended complaint.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint
is the only document submitted by Plaintiff in the entire record
that took fourteen days to reach the court after it was allegedly
signed.1
This strongly suggests that Plaintiff predated the
1
Compl., signed & mailed 06/20/2012, rec’d & filed 06/22/2012, (ECF #1,
2 days); Pl. Notice, signed 06/29/2012, mailed 07/02/2012, rec’d 07/03/2012
(ECF #5, 4 days); first amended Compl., signed 07/27/2012, in forma pauperis
app., signed 07/30/2012, mailed together 08/06/2012, rec’d & filed 08/07/2012
(ECF #9, #10, 8 days); Notice, undated, mailed 08/29/2012, rec’d 08/30/2012
4
proposed second amended complaint after his action was dismissed;
it was certainly mailed afterward.
Rather, it appears that
Plaintiff had a change of heart when the court accepted his
statements as originally intended, but nonetheless declined to
refund his filing fees.
Third, Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint
fails to cure the deficiencies in his original and first amended
Complaints.
Thus, even if Plaintiff had not voluntarily
dismissed his action, the proposed second amended complaint would
have been rejected for the reasons set forth in the court’s
orders dismissing the original and first amended complaints.
See
Orders, ECF #8, #12.
Fourth, Plaintiff appears confused.2
He filed a
document clearly demanding to dismiss his action, but has now
forgotten what he actually requested.
He further asserts that
the proposed second amended complaint “only intend[ed] to dismiss
or withdraw Count Three[,] the denial of Hepatitis C treatment
(ECF #13, 1 day); Mot. for Copy of Compl., Mot. Vol. Withdrawal, signed &
mailed together 09/14/2012, rec’d & filed 09/19/2012 (ECF #17, #18, 5 days);
Mot. Ext. time to file amd’d Compl., Mot. to clarify, signed 09/18/2012,
mailed together, rec’d & filed 09/20/2012 (ECF #16, #19, 2 days);letter
undated, mailed 09/20/2012, rec’d 09/21/2012 (ECF #20, 1 day); second amended
complaint, signed 09/18/2012, mailed 10/01/2012, rec’d & filed 10/02/2012 (ECF
#23, 14 days); Mot. for recons., signed 10/02/2012, mailed 10/03/2012, filed
10/4/2012 (ECF #25, 2 days); and Mot. to file second amd. Compl., signed
10/22/2012, mailed 10/24/2012, filed 10/25/2012 (ECF #27, 3 days).
2
Plaintiff’s is also currently proceeding pro se in four actions in the
Hawaii state courts. See 2PR12-1-0007; 1CC12-1-00350; 2CC12-1-00621; 2cc12-100759, avail. at: http://hoohiki1.courts.state.hi.us/jud/Hoohiki/.
5
[claim].”
See Mot., ECF #27 PageID #173.
The proposed second
amended complaint on file, however, still asserts a denial of
Hepatitis C treatment claim, although Plaintiff now alleges that
he has lost 100 lbs., something he omitted in the original and
first amended Complaints.
If Plaintiff intended to withdraw this
claim, as he says, his action would also have been dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Finally, Plaintiff complains that he is without funds
to commence another suit in this court, and can only do so in the
state courts.
If Plaintiff is asking to reassert this claim in
this action with a different proposed second amended complaint
that he has not yet submitted, that request is DENIED.
Plaintiff
may commence a new action in this court without prepayment of
fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s exception for imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
He must provide sufficient facts to
support such a claim, including why he requires Hepatitis C
treatment, when he was denied such treatment, and who is
personally responsible for denying him this treatment.
Plaintiff
has dismissed this action, however, and he may not reinstate it
by requesting leave to file a second amended complaint, whether
that pleading is the one he has already filed or another that he
//
//
//
6
is contemplating filing.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 30, 2012.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
Grindling v. Martone, 1:12-cv-00361 LEK/BMK; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; G:\docs\prose attys\Recon\DMP\2012\Grindling 12-361 lek (dny
file 2d amd compl).wpd
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?