Bylsma v. Hawaii Public Housing Authority
951 F. Supp. 2d 1116
D. Haw.2013Background
- Pro se Plaintiff David G. Bylsma seeks relief from HPHA and employees in Hawaii federal court.
- Court reviews Findings and Recommendation adopting magistrate’s proposed disposition.
- IFP status requested; poverty guidelines indicate eligibility.
- Court grants IFP status and recommends dismissal of certain claims.
- Claims under 24 C.F.R. Part 964 and Hawaii professional negligence dismissed.
- ADA retaliation claim for compensatory damages allowed to proceed, but damages limited; some relief prospective only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP status should be granted | Bylsma requests IFP, asserting poverty. | Court applies poverty guidelines to deny/confirm IFP. | IFP granted. |
| Whether 24 C.F.R. Part 964 claim is cognizable in federal court | Regulations create rights to timely RPF funding. | HUD regulations do not create a federal claim against HPHA. | Part 964 claim dismissed. |
| Whether professional negligence claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment | State liable for negligence in public housing context. | HPHA immune as a state agency. | Dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. |
| Whether ADA retaliation claim may proceed and scope of relief | ADA Title II retaliation claim against state actors should include damages. | Retaliation claim barred from damages; limited to prospective relief. | ADA claim may proceed for prospective relief; compensatory damages barred. |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to cure deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile for the dismissed claims. | Leave to amend denied for these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1948) (affidavit suffices to show inability to pay costs)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (liberal pro se pleading standard; screening required)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986) (sovereign immunity principles applied to federal claims)
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (§1915(e)(2)(B) screening applies to nonprisoners)
- Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits on state sovereign immunity defenses)
- Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (state officials in official capacity—Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Lane v. Tennessee, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity confirmed for public services)
- Phiffer v. Columbia River Corr. Inst., 384 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2004) (Title II retaliation immunity considerations in Ninth Circuit)
- Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (ADA retaliation damages not available; prospective relief only)
- Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001) (addressed retaliation under ADA Title I; relevance to Title II context)