Fatai v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu
| Decision Date | 18 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-00603-DKW-WRP |
| Parties | SEFO FATAI, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Plaintiff Sefo Fatai was arrested and tried multiple times for drug-related crimes but was never convicted. He claims the local police officers and supervisors involved in his arrest and prosecution were aware he was innocent and engaged in a host of unconstitutional conduct to manufacture evidence and unlawfully seize both his property and person. He seeks relief for a multitude of alleged civil rights violations and torts committed against him. Defendants have moved to dismiss some or all of the claims against them.1 Because Fatai fails to specifically allege how each Defendant violated his rights and/or harmed him, theCourt GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss WITH PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND.
Honolulu Police Officer Ramos pulled over a woman named Kristina Medford for an unspecified driving violation.2 Dkt. No. 44 at 6. Medford possessed methamphetamine. Id. Officer Ramos determined to flip Medford; that is, to have her implicate someone else in the drug trade in exchange for possible favorable treatment in the criminal justice system. Id. Ramos and other police officers also allegedly threatened to prevent Medford from seeing her children if she did not comply. Id. at 6-7. "The remaining Police Officer Defendants3 met with Ramos" and designed a plan for utilizing Medford as a confidential informant. Id. at 6. The "Police Officer Defendants" received approval from the "Supervising HPD Defendants"4 to utilize Medford in this way. Id. at 7.
Medford was allegedly unwilling to provide the true identity of her drug supplier. Id. at 8. Accordingly, although not a defendant herein, she schemed to frame Fatai (or his employer). Dkt. No. 8-9. Officers planned a controlled drug buy between Medford and Fatai. Id. Medford was to meet Fatai in a parking lot and purchase drugs with $1,900 the officers had given her. Id. at 9. Fatai believed he was meeting Medford to collect a debt she owed to his employer. Id. at 8-11. Medford did not wear a recording device to the buy and drove her own car. Neither she nor her vehicle were searched prior to meeting Fatai. Id. at 9.
While officers were in the parking lot where the meeting took place, none could observe the actual interaction between Medford and Fatai. Id. at 10-11. Inside Fatai's car, Fatai asked Medford for the $100 owed to his employer; Medford, rather than paying him, and pursuing her own unrelated agenda, offered him a small baggie of methamphetamine, which Fatai refused. Id. at 11. Allegedly, when Medford left Fatai's car, officers did not observe anything in her possession resembling recently purchased drugs. Id. As Fatai left the parking lot, he was followed by three officers, including Officer Muraoka. Id.
Fatai was then pulled over and his car and person searched. Id. at 12. No money or drugs were found. Id. Meanwhile, Medford drove five miles to a pre-arranged meeting place, during which time she was unobserved by officers. Id. at 12-13. When officers met with Medford at the meeting place, she presented "aCrystal Light box which contained a Ziploc baggie with approximately two ounces of methamphetamine." Id. at 13. None of the $1,900 was recovered from her. Id. at 13-14.
Two days later, again with the approval of the "Supervising HPD Defendants," officers arranged a second controlled buy between Medford and Fatai. Id. at 17. Fatai still believed he was meeting with Medford to collect the $100 debt she owed his employer. Id. This time, officers did not send Medford in to purchase drugs; rather, they detained Fatai as soon as he arrived at the meeting. Id. at 18. Again, his car and person were searched, but no drugs were found. Id. Despite this, he was arrested.5 Id. Fatai's vehicle was seized and processed for forfeiture due to its alleged use in furtherance of a crime. Id. at 19.
According to Fatai, Police Officer Defendants failed to include in their police reports, affidavits, and warrant applications the fact that they had threatened and/or coerced Medford into operating as a confidential informant. Id. at 14-17. They also misrepresented how they came to know Medford, and her reliability as an informant in other operations. Id. Supervising HPD Officers, knowing they contained falsities, nonetheless approved of the police reports and affidavits used in support of an indictment. Id.
Fatai was indicted for methamphetamine trafficking. Id. at 20. He was tried four separate times for this alleged crime. Id. at 21. The second trial ended in a mistrial, the third in a hung jury, and the fourth, presumably, when the charges were dismissed after Medford refused to testify.6 Id. According to Fatai, while his prosecution was ongoing, Police Officer Defendants continued to threaten Medford to get her to testify against him. Id. at 20. Her testimony at the second trial resulted in "additional conditions [being] placed upon [Fatai's] bond." Id. at 21. His bond was eventually revoked, and he was subjected to three years of pretrial detention.7 Id. Despite the charges having been dropped in January 2018, Fatai's car and other seized items have not been returned. Id. at 21, 24.
Fatai filed his original complaint on December 17, 2019. Dkt. No. 1. His original complaint named Medford as a defendant but failed to name Defendants Kawasaki, Nahulu, Namoca, and Sugai. Id. at 1-2. All Defendants, except Medford, filed motions to dismiss on May 5, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. Rather than respond to those motions, Fatai, after seeking (and receiving) approval from Defendants' attorney, decided to file an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 22. At that time, Fatai represented that he sought to amend the complaint to "reduc[e] thenumber of issues that would have to be addressed at a Motions hearing." Id. Fatai filed his first amended complaint ("FAC") on September 14, 2020. Dkt. No. 44. Rather than "reducing the number of issues," Fatai's FAC adds four defendants, removes Medford as a defendant, and adds at least six additional claims.8 Compare id. with Dkt. No. 1.
On October 19, 2020, Defendants City and County of Honolulu ("Honolulu" or the "County"), Ramos, and Muraoka filed motions to dismiss the FAC claims against them, Dkt. Nos. 48, 49; Defendants Kawasaki, Nahulu, Namoca, and Sugai filed the same on February 3, 2021, Dkt. No. 89. Defendants' motions collectively argue that Fatai fails to state a claim either because his claims fail as a matter of law or because he fails to allege sufficient facts to support his claims. Further, Honolulu, Kawasaki, Nahulu, Namoca, and Sugai argue claims against those four Individual Defendants should be dismissed because they were not timely filed. The motions have now been fully briefed. This order follows.
Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the Court to dismiss a complaint that fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires "a short and plainstatement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pursuant to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In addition, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.
Accordingly, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Rather, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Factual allegations that only permit the court to infer "the mere possibility of misconduct" do not show that the pleader is entitled to relief as required by Rule 8(a)(2). Id. at 679.
Fatai asserts thirteen counts: nine against all Individual Defendants; an additional count against only the Police Officer Defendants; and three against Honolulu. Dkt. No. 44 at 25-40. Six of these counts are brought pursuant to Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code ("Section 1983"), while theother seven are brought pursuant to Hawai'i state law. Id. Fatai brings his claims against Kealoha in both Kealoha's individual and official capacities. Fatai brings his claims against all other Individual Defendants in their individual capacities only.9 Id. at 3.
As discussed below, the key issue with Fatai's allegations against the Individual Defendants is that he fails to specify in any way how each Defendant's conduct violated his rights and/or caused him harm. Alleging the Individual Defendants "conspired", see Dkt. No. 72 at 9, is not a means to bypass this pleading defect because it does not place any Defendant on notice of what each has done to justify facing individual liability and the subsequent discovery that comes along with it and because it is quintessentially a "legal conclusion" the Court need not accept as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Many claims suffer from additional defects, as discussed below. Defendants' motions to dismiss are therefore GRANTED.
In a nearly 20-page fact statement, Fatai individually names only three Defendants: Ramos, Muraoka, and Kealoha. Dkt. No. 44 at 5-25. He uses Ramos' name six times and Muraoka's just once. Id. The actions specifically attributed to these individuals are limited to the following: Ramos pulled...
To continue reading
Request your trial