Wakinekona v. Doi
Decision Date | 01 October 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 76-0286. |
Citation | 421 F. Supp. 83 |
Parties | Delbert Kaahanui WAKINEKONA, Plaintiff, v. Nelson K. DOI, Individually and in his capacity as the Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawaii, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Clayton C. Ikei, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff.
Ronald Y. Amemiya, Atty. Gen. of Hawaii, Michael A. Lilly, Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendants.
On August 2, 1976, plaintiff appeared before the Program Committee of the Hawaii State Prison for a hearing on the failure of programs at the Maximum Control Unit. As a result of that hearing, plaintiff was selected to appear at a scheduled program classification hearing on August 10, 1976. The August 10th hearing was conducted by the same persons who presided at the August 2nd hearing. At the August 10th hearing, the board decided that the plaintiff should be transferred to a mainland facility. On August 9, 1976, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed. A motion to amend that complaint was filed on September 16, 1976. This motion and defendants' motion to dismiss were heard by this court on September 17, 1976.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants' motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment.
Under Rule IV of the Supplementary Rules and Regulations of the Corrections Division, Department of Social Services and Housing, State of Hawaii, as approved June 15, 1976, the classification process "never inflicts punishment." The process is to be administered by an "impartial Program Committee composed of at least three members who were not actively involved in the process by which the inmate/ward was brought before the Committee." Furthermore, if the transfer involves a "grievous loss," the inmate is provided the protections of due process set forth in Rules IV(3) and V.
Defendant argues that plaintiff has no federal constitutional right to a due process hearing before an interstate transfer and, therefore, any remedy for violation of state rules and regulations must be sought in the Hawaii State courts. In support of this argument, defendant cites Meachum v. Fano, ___ U.S. ___, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed. 2d 451 (1976); Fajeriak v. McGinnis, 493 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1974); Hillen v. Director of Department of Social Service and Housing, 455 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1972); and Padayao v. Thompson, Civ. No. 74-66 (D.Hawaii 1974).
Fajeriak, Hillen, and Padayao also do not address the issue presented in this case because they were decided prior to the promulgation of the Rules and Regulations of the Corrections Division.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wakinekona v. Olim
...by the Corrections Division of the Hawaii State Department of Social Services and Housing. In its Memorandum and Order dated October 1, 1976, 421 F.Supp. 83, this court held that the hearing conducted on August 10, 1976 before a board consisting of the same members who sat on the August 2, ......