Hyer v. City of Honolulu
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 19-00586 HG-RT |
| Parties | STEVEN A. HYER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Steven K. Hyer; CASSI H. HYER; THERESA L. CHANG, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; PAUL V. NOBRIGA, in his individual capacity; WAYNE SILVA, in his individual capacity; MALO B. TORRES, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU AND WAYNE SILVA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 32)
Plaintiffs are relatives of Steven K. Hyer. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Decedent's estate against the Defendant City and County of Honolulu and several Honolulu police officers. The lawsuit arises following a seven-hour standoff on June 22 and June 23, 2018, resulting in Steven K. Hyer's death.
On June 23, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant City and County of Honolulu and Officer Wayne Silva. The Order granted Plaintiffs leave to amend several of their causes of action.
On July 31, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.
The First Amended Complaint is filed against Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Honolulu Police Officers Paul V. Nobriga, Wayne Silva, and Malo B. Torres in their individual capacities.
The First Amended Complaint asserts federal constitutional and state law claims against the City and County and its officers arising from the June 2018 standoff involving Steven K. Hyer.
The First Amended Complaint does not properly assert which plaintiff is bringing which cause of action against which defendant. Each cause of action must specify the basis for standing for each plaintiff seeking to bring the claim. The allegations must specify against which defendant or defendants the claim is being asserted. The complaint may not use the labels "plaintiffs" or "defendants" when asserting the causes of action, but it must name and specify the parties in each count. Failure to do so will result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint attempts to allege the following eleven counts:
Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Officer Wayne Silva have filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
COUNT III
Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Officer Silva seek dismissal as to all claims against them with the exception of Count III pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Count III is not brought against Officer Silva and is not addressed by the City and County in the Motion to Dismiss. Count III remains.
Defendant Silva seeks qualified immunity as to the claims for excessive force and due process stated in Counts I and II.
Officers Nobriga and Torres have not yet appeared in this action and are not subject to the Motion before the Court.
The pleading issues dismissed here with respect to Officer Silva are also relevant to the claims asserted against Officers Nobriga and Torres in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are cautioned that there must be sufficient facts to plausibly state a claim for each individual defendant. Plaintiffs cannot generally allege acts as done by "defendants" or "officers" or "police." There must be specific allegations pertaining to the acts of an individual defendant officer in order for each plaintiff to plausibly state a claim against an officer.
Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Silva's Motion to Dismiss The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART.
Plaintiffs are given LEAVE TO AMEND consistent with the rulings set forth in this Order.
On October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs Steven A. Hyer, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Steven K. Hyer; Cassi H. Hyer; Theresa L. Chang; Thomas Fujimoto; and James Fujimoto, Jr. filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).
On February 5, 2020, Defendants City and County of Honolulu; Susan Ballard; and Wayne Silva filed DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, SUSAN BALLARD, AND WAYNE SILVA'S MOTION TO DISMISS PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED ON OCTOBER 25, 2019. (ECF No. 12).
On June 10, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 26).
On June 23, 2020, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, SUSAN BALLARD, AND WAYNE SILVA'S MOTION TO DISMISS PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 27).
On July 31, 2020, Plaintiffs Steven A. Hyer, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Steven K. Hyer; Cassi H. Hyer; and Theresa L. Chang filed a FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 28).
On August 19, 2020, Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Silva filed DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU AND WAYNE SILVA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 32).
On September 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition.
(ECF No. 34).
On September 18, 2020, Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Silva filed their Reply. (ECF No. 36).
On October 28, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing on Defendants City and County of Honolulu and Wayne Silva's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 48).
According to the First Amended Complaint:
On June 22, 2018, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Honolulu police officers were called to the residence of Steven K. Hyer ("Hyer") due to his "bizarre behavior." (First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 37-38, ECF No. 28). The responding officers spoke with Hyer and left the premises without taking him into custody. (Id. at ¶¶ 60-65).
Two hours later, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Honolulu police officers were called back to the residence. (Id. at ¶ 78). Based on the reports of neighbors indicating Hyer was in need of psychological assistance, the police officers called the on-duty police psychologist. (Id. at ¶¶ 83, 85). The police psychologist instructed the officers to take Hyer to a psychiatric facility for evaluation. (Id. at ¶ 86).
There is little information in the First Amended Complaint as to what occurred following the arrival of police officers at 8:00 p.m. There are allegations that a seven-hour standoff ensued that included officers from the City and County of Honolulu's Special Weapons And Tactics ("SWAT") Team. (Id. at ¶¶ 106-07, 127). There is no information as to why the SWAT Team was called, who called the SWAT Team, and the basis for their presence at the scene.
There are allegations that an unidentified neighbor heard police shouting at Hyer at 11:00 p.m. (Id. at ¶ 107). There are allegations based on what the unidentified neighbor heard as to what occurred. (Id. at ¶¶ 107-24).
There are no allegations as to what occurred between 11:00 p.m. and 2:30 a.m. The First Amended Complaint jumps in time to approximately 2:30 a.m., on June 23, 2018, when it asserts that Honolulu officers used a bullhorn to talk to Hyer and ask him to come out of his residence. (Id. at ¶¶ 127-30). It is also alleged that unidentified officers also used other methods in an effort to detain Hyer. (Id. at ¶ 149).
The First Amended Complaint asserts that Defendant Officer Paul V. Nobriga served as the field supervisor. (Id. at ¶ 153). Plaintiffs claim Defendant Officer Wayne Silva, a K-9 Handler, deployed his police dog, Zero, into Hyer's residence. (Id. at ¶ 160). Hyer is alleged to have stabbed police dog Zero. (Id. at ¶¶ 161, 177-78). The First Amended Complaint asserts that Hyer was shot by Officer Malo B. Torres and died. (Id. at ¶ 162).
The plaintiffs named in the First Amended Complaint are as follows:
Plaintiffs seek damages against the Defendant City and County of Honolulu and Defendant Officer Silva as a result of the Decedent's death. Plaintiffs also named Officer Nobriga (the officer who allegedly served as field supervisor) and Officer Torres (the officer who allegedly shot Hyer). They have not yet appeared and are not subject to the Motion.
The Court must dismiss a complaint as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where it fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Rule (8)(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must presume all allegations of material fact to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). Conclusory allegations of law and...
To continue reading
Request your trial