Davis v. Abercrombie

• Decision Date: 13 June 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
• 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.

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 Stateof Hawaii; TED SAKAI, in his official capacity as the Directorof the Hawaii Department of Public Safety;CORRECTIONS CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA, Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Dated: 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

On July 31, 2013, Defendants Ted Sakai, in his official capacity as the Interim Director of the Department of Public Safety ("Defendant Sakai" and "DPS"), and Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA", collectively "Defendants") filed their Motionor Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion").¹ [Dkt. no. 361.] Plaintiffs Richard Kapela Davis, Tyrone Galdones, Michael Hughes, Damien Kaahu, James Kane, III, Ellington Keawe, and Kalai Poaha (collectively "the Joint Plaintiffs") filed their memorandum in opposition on January 7, 2014.² [Dkt. no. 465.] Plaintiff Robert A. Holbron ("Plaintiff Holbron") filed a joint memorandum in opposition to Defendants' Motion and a Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment on His Claims ("Holbron's Counter-Motion") on December 23, 2013. [Dkt. no. 452.] Defendants filed their reply in support of Defendants' Motion ("Defendants' Reply"), and their memorandum in opposition to Holbron's Counter-Motion ("Counter-Motion Opposition") on January 13, 2014. [Dkt. nos. 483, 482.] Plaintiff Holbron filed his reply in support of his Counter-Motion ("Holbron's Reply") on January 17, 2014. [Dkt. no. 489.]

On October 31, 2013, the Joint Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Holbron (all collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants as to Their Claims Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("Plaintiffs' Motion"). [Dkt. no. 417.] Defendants filed their memorandum in opposition on December 23, 2013, and Plaintiffs filed their reply ("Plaintiffs' Reply") on January 13, 2014. [Dkt. nos. 441, 476.]

These matters came on for hearing on January 27, 2014. Appearing on behalf of Defendants were David Lewis, Esq., and Jodie Roeca, Esq., and appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs were Sharla Manley, Esq., and Leina`ala Ley, Esq. After careful consideration of the motions, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the arguments of counsel, Defendants' Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Plaintiffs' Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and Holbron's Counter-Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.³

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Davis, Hughes, Kaahu, Holbron, Kane, Keawe, and Poaha filed the Second Amended Complaint for Damages and for Classwide Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Second Amended Complaint") on August 22, 2012. [Dkt. no. 145.] Plaintiff Galdones also filed his Supplemental Complaint for Damages and for Classwide Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Supplemental Complaint") on August 22, 2012. [Dkt. no. 146.]

Plaintiffs are all Hawai`i residents who were convicted and sentenced for committing criminal violations of Hawai`i law. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that, during all periods relevant to the instant case, they were incarcerated at either Saguaro Correctional Center ("Saguaro") or Red Rock Correctional Center ("Red Rock").⁴ Each Plaintiff is of Native Hawaiian ancestry and is a practitioner of the Native Hawaiian religion. Saguaro and Red Rock are private prisons in Arizona, operated by CCA. The State of Hawai`i houses inmates at CCA's facilities pursuant to various contracts. [Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 7-10, 12(c), 17-18; Supplemental Complaint at ¶¶ 7-10, 12(c),17-18.] In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have prohibited them from exercising their constitutional and statutory right to practice their faith.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following claims:

•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 daily worship practices ("Count I"), the observance of Makahiki⁵ ("Count II"), access to sacred items ("Count III"), access to sacred space ("Count IV"), and access to a spiritual advisor ("Count V");

•Violation of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as to daily worship practices ("Count VI"), the observance of Makahiki ("Count VII"), access to sacred items ("Count VIII"), access to sacred space ("Count IX"), and access to a spiritual advisor ("Count X");

•Violation of Plaintiffs' right to free exercise of their religion pursuant to Article I, § 4 of the Hawai`i State Constitution as to daily worship practices ("Count XI"), the observance of Makahiki ("Count XII"), access to sacred items ("Count XIII"), access to sacred space ("Count XIV"), and access to a spiritual advisor ("Count XV");

•Violation of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights pursuant to Article I, § 5 of the Hawai`i State Constitution as to daily worship practices ("Count XVI"), the observance of Makahiki ("Count XVII"), access to sacred items ("Count XVIII"), access to sacred space ("Count XIX"), and access to a spiritual advisor ("Count XX");•Violation of Plaintiffs' rights relating to native Hawaiian customary and traditional practices pursuant to Article XII, § 7 of the Hawai`i State Constitution and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 1-1 as to the observance of Makahiki ("Count XXI");

•Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. ("RLUIPA"), as to daily worship practices ("Count XXII"), the observance of Makahiki ("Count XXIII"), access to sacred items ("Count XXIV"), access to sacred space ("Count XXV"), and access to a spiritual advisor ("Count XXVI").

The Supplemental Complaint states that Plaintiff Galdones "hereby joins in and asserts COUNTS I through XXVI of the Amended Complaint[⁶] on his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated." [Supplemental Complaint at ¶ 124.] The Supplemental Complaint also asserted an additional claim alleging that Defendants retaliated against him, in violation of both federal law and state law. [Id. at ¶¶ 125-37.] This Court dismissed Galdones's retaliation claim under federal law for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. [Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust, filed 4/11/13 (dkt. no. 286) ("4/11/13 Order"), at 28-29.⁷] Thus, Plaintiff Galdones's only remaining claims are his state law retaliation claim and the claims that are asserted in the Second Amended Complaint. PlaintiffGaldones, however, is not one of the named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint, although he is within the proposed Class and Segregation Subclass described in the Second Amended Complaint. [Second Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 23-24.]

On September 13, 2013, this Court dismissed Count XXI with prejudice as to all Defendants. 9/13/13 Order, 2013 WL 5204982, at *22.

Plaintiffs' Motion seeks partial summary judgment on the limited issue of whether they have established, for purposes of their RLUIPA claims, that the following activities at issue in this case are "religious exercises" for purposes of RLUIPA: "(1) daily outdoor congregational meetings; (2) the establishment of a modest outdoor sacred altar; (3) access to sacred garments and sacred items; (4) participation in religious services observing the Opening and Closing of the Makahiki Season; and (5) regular and frequent meetings with a spiritual advisor." [Mem. in Supp. of Pltfs.' Motion at 1.]

Defendants' Motion seeks summary judgment in their favor as to all of Plaintiffs' claims, and Holbron's Counter-Motion seeks summary judgment in his favor as to all of his claims.

DISCUSSION

I. Scope of this Order and Order to File Motion Regarding Claims Seeking Damages

The scope of this order is limited to Plaintiffs' claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. In light of the analysis in Discussion section II of the 9/13/13 Order, this Court DIRECTS 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. Defendants shall file their motion by May 13, 2014. This Court cautions Defendants that, insofar as sovereign immunity may be considered an affirmative defense, see In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2002), if they fail to file the motion by May 13, 2014, this Court will deem the sovereign immunity defense waived.⁸ To the extent that any of the pending motions seek summary judgment as to any claims seeking damages or any claims seeking retrospective equitable relief, the motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

A. Alleged Violations of the Hawai'i State Constitution

As previously stated, Counts XI through XX allege violations of the Hawai`i State Constitution. Defendants' Motion contends that "such legal claims are not cognizable by private parties directly under the state constitution." [Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Motion at 44-45 (some citations omitted) (citing Gonzalez v. Okagawa, 2013 WL 2423219, at *10 (D. Haw. June 4, 2013) ("to the extent Plaintiff is bringing this claim directly under the Hawaii Constitution, ...