Grindling v. Marks
| Decision Date | 20 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 20-00096 LEK-KJM |
| Parties | CHRIS GRINDLING, Plaintiff, v. LANCE MARKS, RANDY ESPERANZA, COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
On April 16, 2020, Defendants Lance Marks ("Marks"), Randy Esperanza ("Esperanza"), and the County of Maui ("the County" and collectively "Defendants") filed their Motion to Dismiss Complaint Filed on February 27, 2020 ("Motion"). [Dkt. no. 7.] Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the Motion ("Supplement") on May 28, 2020.1 [Dkt. no. 18.] Pro se Plaintiff Chris Grindling ("Grindling") filed his "Answer to Motion to Dismiss" on April 23, 2020, and his "Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Dismissal" on May 30, 2020. [Dkt. nos. 12, 19.] The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court forthe District of Hawaii ("Local Rules"). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is hereby granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. In other words, Grindling will not have the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
On February 27, 2020, Grindling filed his Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint ("Complaint").2 [Dkt. no. 1.] Grindling is suing Marks and Esperanza in their individual capacities and in their official capacities as vice officers for the Maui Police Department ("MPD"). He is suing the County as the operator of MPD. The Complaint alleges the following claims: a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim asserting Grindling was wrongfully imprisoned after an improper search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("Count I"); tort claims asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and abuse of power ("Count II"); and a conspiracy claim based on the alleged withholding of evidence ("Count III").
Grindling alleges "Defendants comitted Purgury [sic] submitting false affidavits" in order to obtain a search warrant for his home. [Id. at pg. 5, ¶ 3.] According to Grindling, Defendants did not find any drugs in his home. [Id. at pg. 6, ¶ 3.] Defendants allegedly "Planted Drugs into evidence 5 months later," claiming an informant, Laurie Flores, purchased the drugs from Grindling.3 [Id. at pg. 5, ¶ 3.] Grindling states Defendants found the drugs, along with drug paraphernalia, in Cheyanne Gomes's purse, which was found in a truck parked in the driveway of Grindling's home. [Id. at pg. 6, ¶ 3.]
Grindling alleges that it would have been impossible for Ms. Flores to purchase drugs from him because she did not know what his telephone number was or where he lived. [Id. at pg. 5, ¶ 3.] According to Grindling, because he was wrongfully convicted, he spent "9 years in Solitary Confinement" and lost his family, who either died or moved away. [Id. at pg. 5, ¶ 4; id. at pg. 6, ¶ 4.] Ultimately, "the case got thrown out [and] Defendants declined to prosecute June 2019." [Complaint at pg. 6, ¶ 3.]
In the Motion, Defendants argue the claims in this case must be dismissed with prejudice because: 1) the res judicata doctrine bars Grindling from relitigating the claims in the current case after the proceedings in Grindling v. Marks, et al., CV 19-00448 JAO-KJM ("CV 19-448"); 2) the claims in the current case are time-barred; 3) Grindling has failed to plead plausible claims for relief; and 4) Grindling has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants' Supplement was filed in response to this Court's order to identify the specific criminal case described in the Complaint and to address whether Grindling's conviction in that case was reversed or otherwise vacated. See 4/22/20 Order at 2.
Defendants assert the Complaint refers to State v. Grindling, Cr. No. 07-1-0533(2) ("State Prosecution"), in which a Felony Information was filed in the State of Hawai`i Second Circuit Court ("State Second Circuit") on August 31, 2007 ("State Information"). ( ) The State Information charged Grindling with: one count of possession of a dangerous drug in the third degree, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 2-1243(1); and one count of prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-43.5(a). Both offenses were alleged to have occurred onAugust 30, 2007. A jury trial was held from August 4 to 6, 2008, and the jury found Grindling guilty as to both counts. [Id., Exh. C (State Prosecution docket sheet) at 14-17.] The judgment was entered on November 6, 2008. [Id. at 19.] The judgment was affirmed on appeal. State v. Grindling, No. 29307, 2010 WL 1020355 (Hawai`i Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2010).
On April 4, 2012, Grindling filed a petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Haw. R. Penal P. 40, in the State Second Circuit. Grindling v. State, S.P.P. No. 12-1-0007(3). The circuit court ultimately granted Grindling's petition and ordered a new trial. The Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the Rule 40 case for further proceedings. See Grindling v. State, 144 Hawai`i 444, 448-49, 445 P.3d 25, 29-30 (2019). The Hawai`i Supreme Court, however, vacated the ICA's Judgment on Appeal and affirmed the portion of the circuit court's order ordering a new trial. Id. at 454, 445 P.3d at 35.
The supreme court's opinion was issued on June 13, 2019 and filed in the State Prosecution on the same date. See Hanano Suppl. Decl., Exh. F (version of the supreme court's opinion filed in the State Prosecution). On August 13, 2019, the State Prosecution was dismissed with prejudice.
Shortly after the dismissal of the State Prosecution, Grindling brought CV 19-448 against the same Defendants named in the instant case. See CV 19-448, Civil Complaint ("CV 19-448 Complaint"), filed 8/19/19 (dkt. no. 1). The allegations in the CV 19-448 Complaint were similar to those in the instant case, including: Defendants lied in a search warrant application regarding Laurie Flores's attempt to purchase drugs from Grindling; Defendants planted drugs and drug paraphernalia obtained from Cheyanne Gomes in Plaintiff's home; and Grindling was wrongfully convicted as a result of these and other actions. Grindling stated he "was granted a new trial," but the prosecutor "[r]efused to allow the matter to go to trial." [Id. at pg. 3.]
On August 28, 2019, an order was issued dismissing the CV 19-448 Complaint with leave to amend. [CV 19-448, dkt. no. 4.4] The district court noted Grindling "complain[ed] aboutevents that occurred approximately 13 years ago," and his claims based on those events were likely time-barred. [Id. at 3-5.]
Grindling filed his First Amended Complaint on September 5, 2019. [CV 19-448, dkt. no. 5 ("CV 19-448 Amended Complaint").5] In a September 18, 2019 order, the CV 19-448 Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. [CV 19-448, dkt. no. 6.] The district court noted "the addition of factual information provide[d] some clarity," but concluded the claims alleged were still deficient because Grindling did "not provide[] facts or law explaining how Defendants are responsible for causing harm with respect to each cause of action" alleged in the CV 19-448 Amended Complaint. [Id. at 4.] The district court granted Grindling leave to file a second amended complaint by October 18, 2019, but the district court cautioned Grindling that the second amended complaint would be his final opportunity to cure the defects in his claims. [Id. at 6.]
Grindling subsequently filed a motion for appointment of counsel, but the motion was denied. [CV 19-448, dkt. nos. 7, 8.] He then filed a motion for an extension of time to file his second amended complaint to allow him to try to hire anattorney, but that motion was also denied. [CV 19-448, dkt. nos. 9, 10.]
On October 18, 2019, instead of filing a second amended complaint, Grindling filed a motion to stay the case until he could save enough money to hire an attorney. [CV 19-448, dkt. no. 11.] An entering order denying Grindling's motion to stay was also filed on October 18, and an order dismissing the action was issued on October 30, 2019. [CV 19-448, dkt. nos. 13, 14.6] Final judgment was also entered on October 30. [CV 19-448, Judgment in a Civil Case, dkt. no. 15 ("CV 19-448 Judgment").] No appeal was filed.
Federal common law applies to the issue of whether the CV 19-448 Judgment has a res judicata effect on Grindling's claims in the instant case. See Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 861 F.3d 944, 955 (9th Cir. 2017).
Res judicata, also known as "claim preclusion," "bars a party in successive litigation from pursuing claims that 'were raised or could have been raised in [a] prior action.'" Media Rights Techs.[, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,], 922 F.3d [1014,] 1020 [(9th Cir. 2019)] (internal citation omitted). It applies when there is: (i) an identity of claims between the prior and subsequent actions; (ii) a final judgment on themerits; and (iii) identity or privity between the parties. Id. at 1020-21. . . .
In re Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig. ("NCAA"), 958 F.3d 1239, 1255 (9th Cir. 2020) (some alterations in NCAA). As the party seeking the application of the res judicata doctrine in this case, Defendants bear the burden of establishing each of the three elements. See id.
There is clearly a final judgment on the merits in CV 19-448, and the instant case and CV 19-448 have the same parties. Thus, the second and third res judicata elements are met....
To continue reading
Request your trial