Davis v. Abercrombie

• Decision Date: 31 July 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK
• 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

RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS, MICHAELHUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERTA. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III,ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA,TYRONE KAWAELANILUA 'OLE NA 'OKI GALDONES, Plaintiffs, v. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in hisofficial capacity as theGovernor of the State ofHawaii; TED SAKAI, in hisofficial capacity as theDirector of the HawaiiDepartment of Public Safety;CORRECTIONS CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA, Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

July 31, 2014

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY/DAMAGES

On May 13, 2014, Defendants Ted Sakai, in his official capacity as the Director of the Hawai'i Department of Public Safety ("Defendant Sakai" and "DPS"), and Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA", collectively "Defendants") filed their Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Sovereign Immunity/Damages ("Motion"). [Dkt. no. 519.] Plaintiffs Richard Kapela Davis, Tyrone K.N. Galdones, Robert A. Holbron, Michael Hughes, Damien Kaahu, James Kane, III, Ellington Keawe, and Kalani K. Poaha (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed their memorandum in opposition on June 16, 2014. [Dkt. no. 545.]Defendants filed their reply on June 23, 2014. [Dkt. no. 553.] This matter came on for hearing on July 7, 2014.

On July 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a submission of new evidence in opposition to the Motion ("7/14/14 Submission"). [Dkt. no. 580.] On July 21, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to the 7/14/14 Submission. [Dkt. no. 585.] After careful consideration of the Motion, supporting and opposing documents, and the arguments of counsel, Defendants' Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

The relevant factual and procedural background in this case is set forth in this Court's June 13, 2014 Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff Robert Holbron's Counter-motion for Summary Judgment on His Claims; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants as to Their Claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("6/13/14 Summary Judgment Order"). [Dkt. no. 544.¹]This Court incorporates the background section of the 6/13/14 Summary Judgment Order in the instant order.

This Court limited the scope of the 6/13/14 Summary Judgment Order to Plaintiffs' claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. 2014 WL 2716856, at *3. This Court directed Defendants

to file a motion for summary judgment addressing: 1) whether sovereign immunity and the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 definition of a "person" precludes Plaintiffs' claims seeking either damages or retrospective equitable relief against Defendant Sakai; and 2) whether CCA stands in the shoes of DPS for purposes of the sovereign immunity analysis and the § 1983 "person" analysis.

Id. Defendants filed the instant Motion in response to that order.

The 6/13/14 Summary Judgment Order granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs insofar as this Court ruled that:²•as to the Daily Outdoor Worship Plaintiffs,³ group worship outdoors, on a daily basis, is a religious exercise for purposes of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. ("RLUIPA"); id. at

•Plaintiffs' use of each of the sacred items at issue in Count XXIV (Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim regarding access to sacred items) is a religious exercise for purposes of RLUIPA; id. at *17;

•the Outdoor Altar Plaintiffs'⁴ use of a sacred outdoor space, with a stone altar, is a religious exercise for purposes of RLUIPA (but this Court denied summary judgment to Plaintiffs as to the size and composition of the outdoor space and the altar); id. at *18;

•the Spiritual Advisor Plaintiffs'⁵ regular access to a spiritual advisor is a religious exercise for purposes of their RLUIPA claim (but this Court denied summary judgment to Plaintiffs as to the question of what constitutes "regular" access and the question of what type of access is necessary for the Spiritual Advisor Plaintiffs' religious exercise); id. at *20.

The 6/13/14 Summary Judgment Order granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to:

•Plaintiffs' claims seeking prospective equitable relief regarding Red Rock Correctional Center; id. at *4;

•Plaintiff Poaha's claims seeking prospective equitable relief; id. at *5;•Count XXIII (Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim regarding the observance of Makahiki), Counts II and XII (Plaintiffs' federal and state free exercise claims regarding the observance of Makahiki), and Counts VII and XVII (Plaintiffs' federal and state equal protection claims regarding the observance of Makahiki); id. at *29;

•all items at issue in Count XXIV, Counts III and XII (Plaintiffs' federal and state free exercise claims regarding access to sacred items), except for the portions of those claims based on lack of daily access to personal amulets and 'ohe hano ihu (bamboo nose flute); id. at *35, *37;

•the portions of Counts VIII and XVIII (Plaintiffs' federal and state equal protection claims regarding access to sacred items) as to: ti leaf, lei, block of lama wood, pa 'akai (sea salt), kapa (cloth), 'apu (coconut shell bowl), kala (seaweed), ti shoots, 'olena (yellow ginger), pahu (tree stump drum), ipu (gourd drum), ipu heke (double gourd drum), 'ohe ka eke 'eke (percussion instrument), pu niu (small knee drum), and moena (floor mats made of woven lauhala grasses, or natural fibers); id. at *36-37;

•Count XXV (the Outdoor Altar Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim regarding access to a sacred space with a stone altar), Counts IV and XIV (the Outdoor Altar Plaintiffs' federal and state free exercise claims regarding access to a sacred space with a stone altar), and Counts IX and XIX (the Outdoor Altar Plaintiffs' federal and state equal protection claims regarding access to a sacred space with a stone altar); id. at *39-40; and

•Count XXVI (the Spiritual Advisor Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim), Counts V and XV (the Spiritual Advisor Plaintiffs' federal and state free exercise claims), and Counts X and XX (the Spiritual Advisor Plaintiffs' federal and state equal protection claims); id. at *41-42.

Thus, of Plaintiffs' claims seeking prospective relief, only the following remain: all of Counts I, VI, XI, XVI, and XXII; the portions of Counts III, XIII, and XXIV related to lack of daily access to a personal amulet and to 'ohe hano ihu; and the portions of Counts VIII and XVIII related to a personal amulet,malo, kihei and pau (native garments), a kahili (pole with cylindrical top covered with feathers, cloth, flora and/or painted), pu kani (conch shell), pu ohe (bamboo shell horn).

In the instant Motion, Defendants ask this Court to grant summary judgment in their favor as to: all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Sakai; Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claims against CCA; Plaintiffs' claims against CCA for violation of the Hawai'i State Constitution; and Plaintiff Galdones's request for punitive damages associated with his state law retaliation claim.

DISCUSSION

I. Damages and Retrospective Relief Against Defendant Sakai

Defendants first argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against Defendant Sakai for damages and retrospective relief because Defendant Sakai is not a "person" for purposes of such claims. Plaintiffs respond that "Defendant Sakai is liable in his official capacity as director of the Department of Public Safety for injunctive and prospective declaratory relief. Having named Sakai in his official capacity, Plaintiffs are not pursuing damages against the director in his individual capacity." [Mem. in Opp. at 1 n.1.]

Based on Plaintiffs' representation, and based upon the same analysis set forth in this Court's September 13, 2013 Order Granting Defendant Neil Abercrombie's Motion for Judgment on thePleadings ("9/13/13 Order"), 2013 WL 5204982, at *12-13,⁶ this Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to any claims in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Damages and for Classwide Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Second Amended Complaint"), [filed 8/22/12 (dkt. no. 145),] seeking damages and retrospective relief against Defendant Sakai. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' claims for damages and retrospective relief against Defendant Sakai.

II. Prospective Relief Against Defendant Sakai

Defendants next argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against Defendant Sakai for prospective relief because he was not involved in the decision-making regarding the religious programming at issue, and he does not have the authority to carry out the requested injunctive relief.

First, in the 9/13/13 Order, this Court ruled "if Plaintiffs prevail in this case, it is Defendant Sakai (as DPS director) who has the statutory authority to execute the requested injunctive relief and to remedy any violations identified in any declaratory relief." 9/13/13 Order, 2013 WL 5204982, at *14. In so ruling, this Court stated:

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 353C-2 sets forth the powers and duties of the director of DPS and states, in pertinent part:

[(a)] The director of public safety shall administer the public safety programs of the department of public safety and shall be responsible for the formulation and implementation of state goals and objectives for correctional and law enforcement programs, including ensuring that correctional facilities and correctional services meet the present and future needs of persons committed to the correctional facilities. In the administration of these programs, the director may:

. . . .

(2) Train, equip, maintain, and supervise the force of public safety officers, including law enforcement and correctional personnel, and other employees of the department;

. . . .

(4) Perform other duties as may be required by law;

(5) Adopt,...