Davis et al v. Abercrombie et al
Filing
339
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF TYRONE GALDONES'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF FINALITY re: 301 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 6/24/2013. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive el ectronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications will be served by first class mail on June 25, 2013.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, in his
)
official capacity as the
)
Governor of the State of
)
Hawaii; TED SAKAI, in his
)
official capacity as the
)
Director of the Hawaii
Department of Public Safety; )
)
CORRECTIONS CORPORATIONS OF
)
AMERICA,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS, MICHAEL
HUGHES, DAMIEN KAAHU, ROBERT
A. HOLBRON, JAMES KANE, III,
ELLINGTON KEAWE, KALAI POAHA,
TYRONE KAWAELANILUA`OLE
NA`OKI GALDONES,
CIVIL NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF TYRONE GALDONES’S MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF FINALITY
Before the Court is Plaintiff Tyrone Galdones’s
(“Galdones”) Motion for Certification of Finality, filed on May
15, 2013 (“Motion”).
[Dkt. no. 301.]
Defendants
Neil Abercrombie, in his official capacity as the Governor of the
State of Hawai`i, Ted Sakai, in his official capacity as Director
of the Hawai`i Department of Public Safety, and Corrections
Corporation of America (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a
memorandum in opposition to the Motion on June 3, 2013.
no. 309.]
Galdones filed a reply on June 20, 2013.
[Dkt.
[Dkt. no.
336.]
The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without a hearing pursuant to Rules LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules
of Practice of the United States District Court for the District
of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
After careful consideration of the
Motion, supporting and opposing memoranda, and the relevant legal
authority, the Court HEREBY DENIES the Motion for the reasons set
forth below.
BACKGROUND
The relevant factual and procedural background in this
case is set forth in this Court’s April 11, 2013 Order Granting
in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Exhaust (“4/11/13 Order”).
Davis v. Abercrombie, Civ.
No. 11-00144 LEK-BMK, 2013 WL 1568425 (D. Hawai`i Apr. 11, 2013).
In the 4/11/13 Order, the Court, inter alia, dismissed Galdones’s
claim for retaliation against the Defendants, finding that
Galdones failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to that
claim.
Id. at *11.
In the instant Motion, Galdones asks the Court to
certify its 4/11/13 Order as final and appealable pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
DISCUSSION
Rule 54(b) provides, in relevant part:
When an action presents more than one claim for
relief-whether as a claim, counterclaim,
crossclaim, or third-party claim-or when multiple
parties are involved, the court may direct entry
2
of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer
than all, claims or parties only if the court
expressly determines that there is no just reason
for delay.
The Ninth Circuit has explained the process by which a district
court may direct entry of final judgment as to one claim in a
multi-claim suit:
A district court must first determine that it has
rendered a “final judgment,” that is, a judgment
that is “‘an ultimate disposition of an individual
claim entered in the course of a multiple claims
action.’” Curtiss–Wright [Corp. v. Gen. Elec.
Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980)], (quoting [Sears,
Roebuck & Co. v. ]Mackey, 351 U.S. [427, 436
(1956)]). Then it must determine whether there is
any just reason for delay. “It is left to the
sound judicial discretion of the district court to
determine the ‘appropriate time’ when each final
decision in a multiple claims action is ready for
appeal. This discretion is to be exercised ‘in
the interest of sound judicial administration.’”
Id. at 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460 (quoting Mackey, 351 U.S.
at 437, 76 S. Ct. 895). Whether a final decision
on a claim is ready for appeal is a different
inquiry from the equities involved, for
consideration of judicial administrative interests
“is necessary to assure that application of the
Rule effectively ‘preserves the historic federal
policy against piecemeal appeals.’” Id. (quoting
Mackey, 351 U.S. at 438, 76 S. Ct. 895).
Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Court should “consider such factors as whether the
claims under review were separable from the others remaining to
be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already
determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide
the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent
appeals.”
Curtiss–Wright, 446 U.S. at 8.
3
In determining whether
to grant certification, courts must consider the judicial
administrative interest in avoiding “piecemeal appeals,” as well
as the other equities involved.
Id.; see also 10 Charles Alan
Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 3d § 2659 (1998) (“It is uneconomical for an
appellate court to review facts on an appeal following a Rule
54(b) certification that it is likely to be required to consider
again when another appeal is brought after the district court
renders its decision on the remaining claims or as to the
remaining parties.”).
Applying these factors here, the Court concludes that
entering a separate judgment under Rule 54(b) in favor of
Defendants as to Galdones’s retaliation claim is not “in the
interest of sound judicial administration,” and may result in
unnecessary piecemeal appeals.
While there has been a final decision as to Galdones’s
retaliation claim against Defendants, his claims against them for
congregation with other practitioners on a daily basis,
participation in certain Makahiki rituals and ceremonies, access
to sacred items, and establishment of an outdoor altar remain
before this Court.
See Davis, 2013 WL 1568425, at *10.
The
Court notes that all of the counts in the Supplemental Complaint
for Damages and For Classwide Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
arise from the same core of factual allegations: that Defendants
4
allegedly violated the constitutional rights of Galdones and the
other plaintiffs by prohibiting them from fully exercising their
Native Hawaiian religion.
Further, in the 4/11/13 Order, the Court applied the
same reasoning and legal principles to dismiss Galdones’s
retaliation claim for failure to exhaust as it did in dismissing
the spiritual advisor claims of plaintiffs Richard Davis, Michael
Hughes, Damien Kaahu, and Kalai Poaha, as well as Galdones’s
spiritual advisor claim, and plaintiff Ellington Keawe’s claims
for an outdoor altar and daily religious congregation.
1568425 at *9-13.
2013 WL
The Court is concerned, therefore, that to
enter judgment against Galdones alone, on only his retaliation
claim, would result in piecemeal appeals requiring more than one
adjudication by the court of appeals.
Galdones has not
demonstrated anything extraordinary about this case to
nevertheless warrant certification.
See Morrison-Knudsen Co.,
Inc. v. J.D. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating
that 54(b) judgments should be limited to the “unusual case in
which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of
proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are
outbalanced by pressing needs of litigants for an early and
separate judgment as to some of the claims of the parties”).
The Court therefore concludes that, because of the
substantial factual overlap between Galdones’s retaliation claim
5
and the remaining claims in the Supplemental Complaint for
Damages and For Classwide Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,
entering a separate judgment as to Galdones’s retaliation claim
at this time would likely result in multiple appeals involving
the same issues.
Where there are “different theories of adverse
treatment arising out of the same factual relationship, . . . the
issues and claims at stake are not truly separable, and should
not be separated artificially, for purposes of Rule 54(b).”
Wood, 422 F.3d at 881.
In such circumstances, “[a] similarity of
legal or factual issues . . . weigh heavily against entry of
judgment under [Rule 54(b)].”
Id. at 882 (alterations in
original) (quoting Morrison–Knudson Co., 655 F.2d at 965).
As
such, the Court DENIES the Motion.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Galdones’s Motion for
Certification of Finality, filed on May 15, 2013, is HEREBY
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 24, 2013.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
RICHARD KAPELA DAVIS, ET AL. V. NEIL ABERCROMBIE, ET AL; CIVIL
NO. 11-00144 LEK-BMK; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF TYRONE GALDONES’S
MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF FINALITY
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?