Davis v. Abercrombie

• Decision Date: 30 September 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. 11–00144 LEK–BMK.
• Citation: 903 F.Supp.2d 975
• Parties: Richard Kapela DAVIS, Michael Hughes, Damien Kaahu, Robert A. Holbron, James Kane, III, Ellington Keawe, Kalai Poaha, Tyrone Kawaelanilua'ole Na'oki Galdones, Plaintiffs, v. Neil ABERCROMBIE, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawaii; Ted Sakai, in his official capacity as the Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety; Corrections Corporations of America, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

903 F.Supp.2d 975

Richard Kapela DAVIS, Michael Hughes, Damien Kaahu, Robert A. Holbron, James Kane, III, Ellington Keawe, Kalai Poaha, Tyrone Kawaelanilua'ole Na'oki Galdones, Plaintiffs,

v.Neil ABERCROMBIE, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawaii; Ted Sakai, in his official capacity as the Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety; Corrections Corporations of America, Defendants.

Civil No. 11–00144 LEK–BMK.

United States District Court,

D. Hawai‘i.

Sept. 30, 2012.

Andrew B. Sprenger, Sharla Ann Manley, Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Honolulu, HI, Shawn Westrick, Kawahito, Shraga & Westrick LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

David Lewis, Rachel Love, Struck Wieneke & Love P.L.C., Chandler, AZ, April Luria, Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS'S AND PLAINTIFF JAMES KANE III'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Kapela Davis's and Plaintiff James Kane Ill's (collectively “Moving Plaintiffs”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”), filed on April 26, 2012. [Dkt. no. 75.] Defendants Neil Abercrombie, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawaii, Jodie Maesaka–Hirata, in her official capacity as Interim Director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety, and Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”, all collectively “Defendants”) filed their memorandum in opposition on July 30, 2012, and the Moving Plaintiffs filed their reply on August 31, 2012. [Dkt. nos. 120, 154.]

This matter came on for an evidentiary hearing on September 17, 2012. Appearing on behalf of the Moving Plaintiffs were Sharla Manley, Esq., and Moses Haia, III, Esq., and appearing on behalf of Defendants were Rachel Love, Esq., and April Luria, Esq. The Court heard live testimony from Ben Griego, Sarah Blank, and Kaiana Haili. After careful consideration of the Motion, supporting and opposing documents, the testimony at the hearing, and the arguments of counsel, the Moving Plaintiffs' Motion is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Richard Kapela Davis, Michael Hughes, Damien Kaahu, Robert A. Holbron, James Kane III, and Elington Keawe (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages (“Complaint”) in state court on February 7, 2011. The Complaint sought: declaratory relief that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights to the free exercise of their religion; injunctive relief preventing Defendants from exercising policies that caused this injury to Plaintiffs; and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Dkt. no. 1–2.] Defendants removed this action on March 8, 2011 based on federal question jurisdiction. [Notice of Removal at ¶ 3.]

On November 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint for Damages and for Classwide Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“First Amended Complaint”). ¹ [Dkt. no. 42.] The First Amended Complaint alleges the following claims relevant to the instant Motion:

• violation of Plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of their religion pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as to access to sacred items (“Count III”);

• violation of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as to access to sacred items (“Count VIII”);

• violation of Plaintiffs' right to free exercise of their religion pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the Hawai'i State Constitution as to access to sacred items (“Count XIII”);

• violation of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights pursuant to Article I, Section 5 of the Hawai'i State Constitution as to access to sacred items (“Count XVIII”); and

• violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”), as to access to sacred items (“Count XXIV”).

I. Motion

The Moving Plaintiffs are Hawai'i citizens who were convicted and sentenced for crimes under Hawai'i law. Plaintiff Davis is an inmate at Saguaro Correctional Center (“Saguaro”), and Plaintiff Kane is an inmate at Red Rock Correctional Center (“Red Rock”). Both facilities are in Arizona. [First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 35, 38, 42.] The instant Motion concerns the Moving Plaintiffs' “personal Native Hawaiian prayer object[s]”: Plaintiff Davis's kukui nut, which is one-inch in diameter (“Davis Prayer Object”), which Defendants determined was contraband; and Plaintiff Kane's turtle pendant (“Kane Prayer Object”), which Defendants allegedly defiled. [Motion at 2–3.] The Motion seeks the following relief:

• an order requiring Defendant Abercrombie and Defendant Maesaka–Hirata (collectively “State Defendants”) to instruct CCA, Saguaro, and its agents and employees “to execute all necessary administrative protocol to restore” the Davis Prayer Object; [ id. at 2;]

• an order requiring CCA, Saguaro, and its agents and employees “to immediately execute all necessary administrative protocol to restore” the Davis Prayer Object; [ id. at 3;]

• an order requiring the State Defendants to instruct CCA, Red Rock, and its agents and employees “to execute all necessary administrative protocol to allowing” Plaintiff Kane to replace the Kane Prayer Object; [ id.; ]

• an order requiring CCA, Red Rock, and its agents and employees “to execute all necessary administrative protocol allowing” Plaintiff Kane to replace the Kane Prayer Object; [ id.; ]

• an order requiring Defendants, and their agents and employees, “to comply with certain and specific protocol as to the handling and care of Native Hawaiian personal items[;]” [ id.; ]

• an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the instant Motion; [ id. at 4;] and

• any other appropriate relief [ id.].

The Moving Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Abercrombie, as the State's chief executive, is responsible for the supervision and management of the state entities and employees that execute the State's prison regulations and procedures and monitor the out-of-state correctional facilities where State inmates are serving their sentences. Defendant Maesaka–Hirata is the State official responsible for overseeing the implementation of Haw.Rev.Stat. Chapter 353, including Haw.Rev.Stat. § 353–16.2, which governs the transfer of State inmates to out-of-state facilities (“Out–of–State Inmates”). The Moving Plaintiffs argue that the State Defendants must guarantee the Out–of–State Inmates' rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Hawai'i State Constitution and the United States Constitution, as well as state and federal laws. [Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 2–3.] CCA is a private, for-profit corporation that has contracts with the State to manage Saguaro, Red Rock, and other facilities where the Out–of–State Inmates are incarcerated pursuant to State contracts. [ Id. at 3 (citing Motion, Decl. of Andrew B. Sprenger (“Sprenger Decl.”), Exh. A (example of contract)).] Plaintiffs argue that the federal government provides the State with funds for the administration of criminal corrections, and these funds are used to pay CCA for its services. [ Id. at 3.]

A. Plaintiff Davis Background

Plaintiff Davis states that, in or around June 2006, while he was incarcerated at Diamondback Correctional Facility (“Diamondback”), an Oklahoma facility managed by CCA, Defendants authorized John Keola Lake, “a revered and well-respected kumu,” ² to meet with him and other practitioners of the Native Hawaiian religion. Plaintiff Davis found Kumu Lake's visit to be “spiritually healing.” [Davis Decl. at ¶ 24.] According to Plaintiff Davis, during Kumu Lake's visit, Defendants “authorized him to give” Plaintiff Davis the Davis Prayer Object, “a small cloth pouch containing a kukui nut wrapped in a upena (net), and tied off with a pupu (shell).” [ Id. at ¶ 25.] The Davis Prayer Object is “a symbol of enlightenment and knowledge with the upena representing the net that binds and holds us together, and the pupu symbolizing the three pikos (center).” [ Id.] Kumu Lake also told Plaintiff Davis that it was to remind him of Kumu Lake's teachings and his time with other Native Hawaiian Religion practitioners, as well as to give him “spiritual comfort” after Kumu Lake left. [ Id. at ¶ 26.] At some point after receiving the Davis Prayer Object from Kumu Lake, Plaintiff Davis was transferred to Saguaro.

Plaintiff Davis kept the Davis Prayer Object in his possession and used it daily in his prayers and chants, and to gain and sustain his mana. He also used it in dances, other religious protocol, and other communal religious activities. It was particularly important to him for times when he could not participate in group religious activities. It also provided him with spiritual comfort because it was from his homeland and he is thousands of miles away from his family, community, culture, and homeland. [ Id. at ¶¶ 27–29.]

On February 20, 2012, “Case Manager Blank” confiscated the Davis Prayer Object during a routine search of Plaintiff Davis's cell. Plaintiff Davis tried to explain its religious significance, which Blank refused to acknowledge. Blank referred to it as a “ ‘rock’ or a ‘nut,’ which [Plaintiff Davis] found demeaning and insensitive to [his] religion.” [ Id. at ¶ 30.] Blank determined that the Davis Prayer Object was contraband, and gave Plaintiff Davis the choice between destroying it or sending it away. Plaintiff Davis mailed it to his attorney for safekeeping. [ Id. at ¶ 32; Sprenger Decl. at ¶ 4, Exh. C (Disposition of Non–Allowable Property form for “Nut”).] Plaintiff Davis states that the possession of the Davis Prayer Object “is critical to [his] Native Hawaiian religion,” and its deprivation is causing him “strong spiritual injury” and is causing him to “grow spiritually weaker by the day [.]” [Davis Decl. at ¶ 33.] Plaintiff Davis states that “[i]t is [his]...