Phillips v. Honolulu Police Department et al
Filing
15
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED MARCH 23, 2011, PURSUANT TO FRCP, RULE 12(b)(6) re: 14 . ~ All of Plaintiff's claims against Honolulu P olice Department are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ~ Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 6/23/2011. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). All participants are registered to receive electronic notifications.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PATRICIA L. PHILLIPS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT,
)
ET AL.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )
CIVIL NO. 11-00248 LEK-RLP
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED
MARCH 23, 2011, PURSUANT TO FRCP, RULE 12(b)(6)
Before the Court is Defendant Honolulu Police
Department’s (“HPD”) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
Filed March 23, 2011, Pursuant to FRCP, Rule 12(b)(6) (“Motion”),
filed on April 13, 2011.
Plaintiff Patricia L. Phillips
(“Plaintiff”) did not file a memorandum in opposition to the
Motion.
On June 15, 2011, the Court issued an order vacating the
hearing on the Motion, granting the Motion, and informing the
parties that it would thereafter issue a written order (“Order
Vacating Hearing”).
[Dkt. no. 14.]
After careful consideration
of the Motion and the relevant legal authority, HPD’s Motion is
HEREBY GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
I.
Factual History
On or about October 20, 2008, Plaintiff was allegedly
“assaulted and battered by police officer Sheri K. Nakasone and
other police officers employed by Defendant HPD in and just
outside of her place of residence.”
¶ 4.]
[First Amended Complaint1 at
During the course of this alleged assault and battery,
“Plaintiff was arrested and handcuffed by [the police] while
wearing only a green towel, which towel fell off of the Plaintiff
by the conduct of the police unnecessarily revealing her private
parts to the male and female officers and other members of the
public.”
[Id. at ¶ 6.]
Prior to the arrest, Officer Nakasone allegedly
informed Plaintiff that she would not be arrested if she: (1)
allowed Officer Nakasone to enter the bathroom where she was
located; (2) wrote a statement for the police; and (3) agreed to
appear at the District Court of the First Circuit, State of
Hawai`i, the following morning on a charge of “Abuse of Household
Member, a criminal violation of Section 709-906 of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes.”
[Id. at ¶ 7 (emphasis omitted).]
Plaintiff
claims that, after agreeing to these conditions and allowing
Officer Nakasone into the bathroom, “other male police officers
rushed in and then assaulted and battered the Plaintiff while
laughing at her.”
[Id.]
Plaintiff alleges that, before they removed her from
1
The First Amended Complaint is attached to Defendants’
Notice of Removal of Civil Action Under 28 U.S.C. 1441(c) as
Exhibit B to the Declaration of Counsel. [Dkt. no. 1-3.]
2
her residence, police officers denied her request to put on
clothing.
[Id. at ¶ 8.]
As a result, according to Plaintiff,
she was “paraded in front of the police officers and public
wearing only a loose-fitting towel which the police allowed or
caused to fall off of the Plaintiff.”
[Id.]
Plaintiff alleges
that Officer Nakasone “made an incomplete if not false police
report” by omitting the names of the other police officers that
participated in the arrest and by falsely stating that Plaintiff
refused to put on clothes.
II.
[Id. at ¶ 10.]
Procedural History
On October 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai`i.
On
March 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint in
the same court.
The First Amended Complaint alleges seven causes
of action: (1) Assault and Battery (Count I); (2) False
Imprisonment and False Arrest (Count II); (3) Defamation (Count
III); (4) Negligence (Count IV); (5) Violation of the Right to
Privacy (Count V); (6) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count VI);
and (7) Punitive Damages (Count VII).
HPD filed its Notice of Removal of Civil Action Under
28 U.S.C. 1441(c) on April 13, 2011.
HPD also filed its Motion
on April 13, 2011 seeking dismissal of all counts in the First
Amended Complaint.
On June 7, 2011, the Court issued its Inclination
3
Regarding Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint Filed March 23, 2011, Pursuant to FRCP
Rule 12(b)(6), informing the parties that Plaintiff had failed to
file a memorandum in opposition to the Motion pursuant to Local
Rule 7.4 and that the Court was inclined to grant the Motion as
unopposed.
[Dkt. no. 12.]
On June 15, 2011, the Court issued its Order Vacating
Hearing in which it vacated the hearing on the Motion and granted
the Motion.
STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a
motion to dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted[.]”
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)); see also
Weber v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.
2008).
This tenet – that the court must accept as true all of
the allegations contained in the complaint – “is inapplicable to
legal conclusions.”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Accordingly,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
4
Id.
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955).
Rather, “[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.”
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955).
Id.
Factual
allegations that only permit the court to infer “the mere
possibility of misconduct” do not show that the pleader is
entitled to relief.
Id. at 1950 (citation omitted).
“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it
is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”
Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, HPD argues that it is not a
proper party in this suit because it is not sui juris.
[Mem. in
Supp. of Motion at 14 (citing McCoy v. Corbett, 35 Haw. 743
(1940) (holding no jurisdiction where political entity not
authorized to sue or be sued)) (some citations omitted).]
According to HPD, “Article VI, Chapter 16, Sections 16-601 (sic)
and 6-602 of the City Charter establish that the Honolulu Police
Department is an executive department which is under the
supervision of the managing director of the City [and County of
5
Honolulu].”2
[Id. at 14-15 (citation omitted).]
HPD explains
that “‘different departments [under the Revised Charter of
Honolulu] do not constitute legal entities which are separate and
apart from [the City and County of Honolulu].’”
[Id. at 15
(quoting City & County of Honolulu v. Toyama, 61 Haw. 156, 161,
598 P.2d 168, 172 (1979)).]
As a result, HPD claims that the
Court should dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
[Id.]
HPD is not an independent legal entity subject to suit.
See Dowkin v. Honolulu Police Dep’t, Civil No. 10-00087 SOM/LEK,
2010 WL 4961135, at *3 (D. Hawai`i Nov. 30, 2010) (citing Meyer
v. City & County of Honolulu, 6 Haw. App. 505, 507 n.1, 729 P.2d
388, 390 n.1, rev’d in part on other grounds, 69 Haw. 8, 731 P.2d
149 (1986) (stating “the HPD is a department placed under
supervision of the managing director of the City and County of
Honolulu” and is not an “independent legal entity”); Headwaters
Forest Def. v. Cnty. of Humboldt, et al., 276 F.3d 1125, 1127
(9th Cir. 2002) (treating police departments as part of their
respective county or city)); accord N Group LLC v. Hawai`i Cnty.
Liquor Comm’n, 681 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1234 (D. Hawai`i 2009)
(dismissing the Liquor Commission because it lacks the capacity
2
The Court observes that HPD appears to be referring to §
6-601 of the Charter of the City and County of Honolulu, which
provides: “There shall be a department of emergency services
headed by a director of emergency services who shall be appointed
and may be removed by the mayor.” Rev. Charter of Honolulu, § 6601.
6
to be sued).
Since HPD is not a distinct legal entity from the
City and County of Honolulu, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff’s
suit against HPD fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be
granted[.]”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Court further
FINDS that Plaintiff’s claims against HPD cannot be “saved by any
amendment.”
See Harris, 573 F.3d at 737 (citations and quotation
marks omitted).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS HPD’s Motion and
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all of the claims in Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, HPD’s Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint Filed March 23, 2011, Pursuant to FRCP,
Rule 12(b)(6), filed on April 13, 2011, is HEREBY GRANTED, and
all of Plaintiff’s claims against HPD are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 23, 2011.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
PATRICIA L. PHILLIPS V. HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT; CIVIL NO. 1100248 LEK-RLP; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HONOLULU POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED
MARCH 23, 2011, PURSUANT TO FRCP, RULE 12(b)(6)
7
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?