Jim v. Doe
Decision Date | 07 August 2018 |
Docket Number | CIV. NO. 18-00076 DKW-RLP |
Parties | HAROLD UHANE JIM and CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF HAWAII - DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, COUNTY OF HAWAII, HARRY KIM, JOBIE MASAGATANI, MAKU'U FARMERS MARKET ASSOCIATION, PAULA KEKAHUNA, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, and DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
On January 23, 2018, Pro Se Plaintiffs Harold Uhane Jim and Christopher Young filed a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-2) initiating the instant lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. On February 28, 2018, Defendants County of Hawai'i and Harry Kim ("County Defendants") removed the matter to this Court. Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1. Before the Court are separate-but-related motions to dismiss the complaint filed by the County Defendants (Cty. MTD, Dkt. No. 6) and by Defendants State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (the "Department") and Jobie Masagatani (collectively "State Defendants"; State MTD, Dkt. No. 9).1
For the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs are permitted 30 days' leave to amend the Complaint, consistent with the terms of this Order.
This lawsuit arises out of an alleged incident that occurred on November 6, 2016, when Young and another individual chauffeured Jim to the "Maku'u [Farmers Market] Association establishment," which is located "upon Hawaiian home lands in Puna, Hawai'i" (Compl. ¶ 8, Dkt. No. 1-2), to protest a policy of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (Compl. ¶ 9). During the visit, Plaintiffs allege that Kekahuna, executive officer of the Maku'u Farmers Market Association (the "Association"), physically assaulted Jim, causing injuries to his person. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 11-12, Dkt. No. 1-2. Plaintiffs further claim that the Association served Plaintiffs with improper notice of criminal trespass, which caused them emotional and other harm:
Compl. ¶¶ 8-13, Dkt. No. 1-2.
Plaintiffs filed suit in state court on January 23, 2018, alleging eight causes of action, including—Assault/Battery ; Intentional and/or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ; "False Pretension and/or False Representation" ; "Extent of Trespasser's Liability for Harm," which is based on the "notice of criminal act" ; Civil Rights Torts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their actions described in Counts I-IV ; "Fourteenth Amendment Claims (Due Process)" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for "intimidat[ing] and prevent[ing] the Plaintiffs from exercising their substantive rights" ("Count VI"; Compl. ¶¶ 24-25); Fourth Amendment and Common Law Tort Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for "excessive and unreasonable force to deprive Plaintiffs from the rights as alleged before" ; and Punitive Damages . 2
From what the Court can discern, Plaintiffs named Jobie Masagatani, chairperson of the Department (Compl. ¶ 3), Hawai'i Mayor Harry Kim (Compl. ¶ 6), and Paula Kekahuna, executive officer of the Association (Compl. ¶ 5), as defendants for "act[ing] under color of law" to deprive Plaintiffs of their variousconstitutional rights. See Compl. ¶ 13 ( ). Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and "[s]uch other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate." Compl. ¶¶ A-H, Dkt. No. 1-2.
County Defendants removed the case to federal court on February 28, 2018 (Dkt. No. 1) and moved to dismiss all claims colorably alleged in the Complaint on March 6, 2018 (Dkt. No. 6). See Mem. in Supp. of Cty. MTD at 2, Dkt. No. 6-1. State Defendants filed their related motion to dismiss all claims on March 15, 2018. State MTD, Dkt. No. 9; Mem. in Supp. of State MTD, Dkt. No. 9-1.
On May 2, 2018, Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to respond to the Motions to Dismiss and to object to the removal. Verification Pl.'s Request for Extension, Dkt. No. 14. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request in part, allowing Plaintiffs until May 29, 2018 to respond to the Motions to Dismiss, but denying an extension of time to object to removal. Entering Order, Dkt. No. 15. Notwithstanding the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs objected to removal anyway on June 8, 2018 (Dkt. No. 19), objections which this Court denied as untimely. See Entering Order, Dkt. No. 20 ( ). Plaintiffs did not file any response to the Motions to Dismiss—either by the May 29, 2018 extended deadline or since (see Dkt. No. 18)—and the Court opted to decide the Motions to Dismiss without a hearing, under Local Rule 7.2(d). The instant disposition follows.
The Court may dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" when there is a "lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged." UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). In other words, a plaintiff is required to allege "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Weber v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008).
"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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).Factual allegations that only permit the Court to infer "the mere possibility of misconduct" do not constitute a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as required by FRCP 8(a)(2). Id. at 677, 679 ( ).
For purposes of ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court "accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). However, conclusory allegations of law, unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ( ); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 . Moreover, the court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice,nor must it assume that allegations contradicted by the exhibits attached to the complaint are true. Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, "the factual allegations that are taken as...
To continue reading
Request your trial