Emrit v. Secretary of State of Hawaii, 1:17-cv-00504

Ronald S. Emrit (pro se) filed a First Amended Complaint alleging he was improperly excluded from the 2016 presidential ballot in Hawai‘i and asserting federal civil rights and statutory claims against the Secretary of State of Hawaii and the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
The Court previously screened and identified deficiencies in Emrit’s original complaint; this FAC largely repeated the same defects and incoherent factual allegations.
The FAC failed to identify applicable state rules, any concrete acts by named defendants, or facts showing defendants acted under color of law; the caption even named a non-existent “Secretary of State of Hawaii.”
Emrit asserted Title VII, ADA, equal protection, due process, and § 1983 claims but alleged no employment relationship, no exhaustion of administrative remedies for Title VII/ADA, and no plausible link between defendants’ conduct and a constitutional violation.
The Court dismissed the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim, dismissed Title VII claims with prejudice, granted limited leave to amend with detailed pleading instructions, and denied pending motions as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FAC states a plausible claim under Rule 8/Iqbal-Twombly	Emrit contends he was unlawfully excluded from ballots and his rights were violated	Defendants (and Court) assert allegations are conclusory, incoherent, and lack factual predicate	FAC dismissed for failure to state a claim; leave to amend limitedly granted
Whether Title VII applies	Emrit alleges Title VII violations for being excluded from ballot	Title VII applies to employment discrimination; no employment facts alleged	Title VII claim dismissed with prejudice
Whether § 1983 claims adequately allege action under color of state law	Emrit alleges due process and equal protection violations from exclusion	No factual allegations linking defendants’ acts to state action or specific injury	§ 1983 claims dismissed for failure to allege state action or causation
Whether claims against State/officials barred by sovereign immunity	Emrit seeks damages against state/officials in official capacity	Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against states/officials in official capacity	Damages claims against the State of Hawaii/officials dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; legal conclusions insufficient)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§ 1983 requires action under color of law)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states not liable for damages under § 1983)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment immunity principles)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity suit principles and Eleventh Amendment)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (limits on suing state officials in federal court)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (dismissal for lack of cognizable legal theory or facts)
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (standards for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (Rule 8 dismissal where complaint prevents understanding claims)
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124 (Rule 8 sua sponte dismissal for confusing pleadings)
Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings; waiver of unpled claims)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (complaint must allege sufficient underlying facts for claims)
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (requirement to show affirmative link between conduct and injury under § 1983)