Spriestersbach v. State
| Docket Number | Civ. 21-00456 LEK-RT |
| Decision Date | 18 August 2022 |
| Parties | JOSHUA SPRIESTERSBACH, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF HAWAII, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OFFICER ABRAHAM K. BRUHN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, NIETZSCHE LYNN TOLAN, MICHELLE MURAOKA, LESLIE MALOIAN, JACQUELINE ESSER, JASON BAKER, MERLINDA GARMA, SETH PATEK, DR. JOHN COMPTON, DR. MELISSA VARGO, DR. SHARON TISZA, HAWAII STATE HOSPITAL, DR. ALLISON GARRETT, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-20, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. SHARON TISZA'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS DR. JOHN COMPTON AND DR. MELISSA VARGO'S SUBSTANTIVE JOINDER IN DEFENDANT DR. SHARON TISZA'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
On March 14, 2022, Defendant City and County of Honolulu (“the City”) filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“City Motion”), and Defendant Dr Sharon Tisza (“Dr. Tisza”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint (“Tisza Motion”). [Dkt. nos 79, 80.] On March 17, 2022, Defendants Dr. John Compton (“Dr. Compton”) and Dr. Melissa Vargo (“Dr Vargo”) filed a substantive joinder in the Tisza Motion (“Compton/Vargo Joinder”).[1] [Dkt. no. 84.] On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff Joshua Spriestersbach (“Spriestersbach”) filed his opposition to the Tisza Motion and the Compton/Vargo Joinder (“Examiners Opposition”) and his opposition to the City Motion (“City Opposition”).[2] [Dkt. nos. 105, 106.] On April 28, 2022, the City and Dr. Tisza filed their respective replies (“City Reply” and “Tisza Reply”), [dkt. nos. 110, 111,] and
Drs. Compton and Vargo filed their reply and an errata thereto,[3][dkt. nos. 112, 113]. The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.1(c) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). For the reasons set forth below, the City Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Tisza Motion and the Compton/Vargo Joinder are granted. Judgment on the pleadings is granted in favor of the City as to all of Spriestersbach's claims against it, but Spriestersbach is granted leave to amend those claims, and all of Spriestersbach's claims against the Examiner Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
The instant case arises from Spriestersbach's May 11, 2017 arrest for crimes committed by Thomas R. Castleberry and Spriestersbach's subsequent detention related to that arrest until January 17, 2020. See Complaint, filed 11/21/21 (dkt. no. 1), at pg. 2, ¶ 2.[4]
On October 14, 2011, when Spriestersbach was arrested for sleeping on a stairwell, he gave the name “Castleberry,” with no first name, to the arresting officer. When the arresting officers entered the name Castleberry into their computer, they learned of a July 2009 warrant for Thomas R. Castleberry (“Castleberry Warrant”), and they arrested Spriestersbach for the warrant. Spriestersbach later explained that William C. Castleberry was his grandfather, and that he would occasionally use his grandfather's name. Spriestersbach was not required to make a court appearance in connection with this arrest. [Id. at pg. 12, ¶¶ 20-23.]
On January 17, 2015, Spriestersbach was approached by police officers because he was houseless and sleeping in a City park. Although he initially refused to tell them his name, he eventually told the officers his name was Joshua Spriestersbach. [Id. at ¶¶ 25-26.] The Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) database listed Thomas R. Castleberry as one of Joshua Spriestersbach's aliases. The officers then looked for any outstanding warrants for either Joshua Spriestersbach or his aliases, Thomas R. Castleberry and William C. Castleberry. The officers learned about the Castleberry Warrant, but they did not arrest Spriestersbach because his fingerprints did not match the fingerprints on file for Thomas Castleberry. [Id. at ¶¶ 27-31.]
On May 11, 2017, Spriestersbach was arrested after he fell asleep on a sidewalk while waiting in a food distribution line. Spriestersbach gave his full name, birth date, and social security number to an HPD officer, Defendant Abraham Bruhn (“Bruhn”), and to the other HPD officers who participated in Spriestersbach's arrest. [Id. at ¶¶ 33-35.] One of the officers had a copy of the Castleberry Warrant, and Bruhn, either acting alone or together with other HPD officers, hand wrote “Joshua Spriestersbach” on the warrant as an alias for Thomas R. Castleberry. [Id. at ¶ 36.] Bruhn, either acting alone or with other officers, arrested Spriestersbach for the Castleberry Warrant and transported him to the Oahu Community Correctional Center (“OCCC”), which is operated by Defendant State of Hawai'i Department of Public Safety (“DPS”).
Spriestersbach was fingerprinted and photographed at OCCC. Spriestersbach alleges neither Bruhn, the other arresting officers, nor any OCCC employee compared his photograph, fingerprints, or other identifying information with Thomas Castleberry's identifying information. Spriestersbach asserts that, if they had done so, they would have realized that he had been misidentified as Thomas Castleberry. [Id. at ¶¶ 37-40.]
Before his first court hearing, Spriestersbach told his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Nietzsche Lynn Tolan (“Tolan”), that he was not Thomas Castleberry and that he had not committed the crimes attributed to Thomas Castleberry. Spriestersbach also provided Tolan with identifying information. Tolan requested a court-ordered evaluation to determine if Spriestersbach was mentally fit to proceed. The Examiner Defendants were the panelists appointed to perform the evaluation. [Id. at ¶¶ 42-44.]
The Examiner Defendants evaluated Spriestersbach on multiple occasions, including after his transfer from OCCC to the Hawai'i State Hospital (“HSH”). Spriestersbach states he told the Examiner Defendants multiple times that he was not Thomas Castleberry, and he asserts they had access to his legal records and his medical records. However, the Examiner Defendants did not confirm his identity. [Id. at ¶¶ 46-47.] Instead, the Examiner Defendants cited Spriestersbach's protests about his identity as evidence that he was not fit to proceed in the pending criminal case. [Id. at ¶ 48.]
According to the Complaint, Dr. Garrett, an HSH physician, verified in January 2020 that Spriestersbach was not Thomas Castleberry, and Spriestersbach was released on January 17, 2020. [Id. at ¶¶ 54-55.]
The Complaint alleges thirteen claims against seventeen defendants. Relevant to the matters addressed in this Order, Spriestersbach alleges the following claims:
The City seeks judgment on the pleadings as to all of the claims against it because: the federal law claims are time-barred; Spriestersbach has not pled sufficient factual allegations to support any of his claims against the City; and, as to his IIED and NIED claims, Spriestersbach has not pled sufficient factual allegations to support his position that one or more City employees acted with malice, which is required to hold the City liable under respondeat superior for torts committed by its employees. As to Spriestersbach's federal law claims, the City urges this Court to grant judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. The City does not address whether leave to amend should be granted if the City is granted judgment on the pleadings as to Spriestersbach's state law claims.
Drs. Tisza, Compton, and Vargo seek the dismissal, with prejudice, of all of Spriestersbach's claims against them, based on quasi-judicial immunity.
The City first argues all of Spriestersbach's federal law claims against it are time-barred.
Spriestersbach's § 1983 claims are governed by the Hawai'i limitations period for personal injury actions. See Nance v. Ward, 142 S.Ct. 2214, 2225 (2022). The Hawai'i statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7. State tolling statutes are also applied to § 1983 claims, see Artis v Dist. of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 603 (2018), as are equitable tolling rules, “except to the extent any of these laws is inconsistent with federal law[,]” Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). However, “the time at which a § 1983 claim accrues is a question of federal law, conforming in general to common-law tort principles.” McDonough v. Smith...
To continue reading
Request your trial