2012, the Court issued an order that (1) dismissed the claimsagainst the City without prejudice; (2) dismissed part of Plaintiff’s claims against Kealoha without prejudice; (3)dismissed all claims against HPD with prejudice; and (4)dismissed Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claims with prejudice.(Doc. No. 25.) On June 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint against Kealoha as an individual and in his officialcapacity, Putzulu as an individual and in his official capacity,and the City.
(Doc. No. 31.) The Amended Complaint contains thefollowing two counts: “Count I - The Second and FourteenthAmendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983Against All Defendants,” and “Count II - The FourteenthAmendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983 Against All Defendants.” (Id.)On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 18.) On June 29, 2012, theCourt issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for PreliminaryInjunction (“2012 Preliminary Injunction Order”). (Doc. No. 35.)
Defendant Putzulu has not been served with the AmendedComplaint or appeared in this action. (See Doc. No. 31-2 and Doc.Nos. 31-135.) At the September 17, 2013 hearing for Plaintiff’sMotion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Permanent Injunction,Plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily dismissed Putzulu fromthis suit. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff has not filed a Noticeof Dismissal. Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff to file aNotice of Dismissal, dismissing Putzulu fromthis action.-2-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 53 PageID #: 2005