Kaeo-Tomaselli v. Women's Community Correctional Center et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF re 38 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/28/12. (emt, )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). Dion'e Kaeo-Tomaselli were served by first class mail at the address of record on August 28, 2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DION’E KAEO-TOMASELLI,
#A5004463,
Plaintiff,
vs.
W.C.C.C. MEDICAL UNIT
ADMINISTRATORS ABBY MEDRANO,
TINA DOE, ERIC DOE,
Defendants.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:11-cv-00669 SOM-KSC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff has filed a document titled “Requesting for
Punitive and Injunction Relief.”

ECF #38.

Plaintiff seeks an

order declaring that Deputy Attorneys General Caron M. Inagaki
and John F. Molay have a conflict of interest in representing
Defendants, who are employees of the Hawaii Department of Public
Safety (“DPS”), because they also represent DPS in Plaintiff’s
state court civil action against DPS.

See Kaeo-Tomaselli v.

Dep’t of Public Safety, 1CC 10-1-002592.

Plaintiff says she

intends to file a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel and apparently requests injunctive relief striking
Defendants’ July 25, 2012, interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s Motion

is DENIED.
First, the Office of the Attorney General has a
mandatory duty to represent the state and any state officer
acting in an official capacity.

See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 26-7

(1993) (“The department [of the attorney general] shall
administer and render state legal services, including furnishing
of written legal opinions to the governor, legislature, and such
state departments and officers as the governor may direct;
represent the State in all civil actions in which the State is a
party[.]”).

It is quite common for state prisoners to file civil

actions against the DPS and its employees in state and federal
court.

In an analogous situation, the California Supreme Court

found no conflict of interest “simply because the district
attorney and the defendant have been adversaries in other legal
proceedings, even where the defendant previously prevailed.
Other evidence of overriding bias must be present to warrant
disqualification.”

People v. Millwee, 18 Cal. 4th 96, 123, 74

Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 954 P.2d 990 (1998) (finding that previous
prosecution does not warrant recusal when there was no evidence
of personal animosity or improper tactics).
Inagaki’s and Molay’s actions taken in the course of
defending state employees do not present a conflict of interest
for an opposing party.

Plaintiff presents no evidence of

overriding bias or any case law supporting her argument that they
have a conflict of interest here.

The court finds no merit to

Plaintiff’s claim that Inagaki’s or Molay’s representation of
Defendants and of the DPS in her state case presents a conflict
of interest.

2

Second, Deputy Attorney General Molay has withdrawn the
request for interrogatories in this case.

Molay states that he

inadvertently captioned them for this case and has since
corrected this mistake and propounded them in Plaintiff’s state
case.

See Defs.’ Response, ECF #39, Letter, ECF #40.

Plaintiff’s request is moot and is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 28, 2012.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Kaeo-Tomaselli v. WCCC Medical Unit, Civ. No. 11-00669 SOM-KSC, ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; psa/tros/2012/Tomaselli 11-669 SOM (dny confl. of int. AGs)

3

4