Dural v. City of Chad of Honolulu

658 F.Supp.3d 855

Roynes J. DURAL II, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; Sheryl Sunia; Myron H. Takemoto;Vibiana Kealoha-Wong; Shyla Combis; Chad Kalawaia; Nathan Slutter;Does 1-20, Defendants.

Civ. No. 21-00461 HG-WRP

United States District Court, D. Hawai'i

Signed February 17, 2023

Peter C. Hsieh, Honolulu, HI, Myles S. Breiner, Law Office of Myles S. Breiner, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.

Page C. Ogata, Department of the Corporation Counsel in Honolulu Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant City and County of Honolulu.

David J. Minkin, Jordan K. Inafuku, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Sheryl Sunia.

Vibiana Kealoha-Wong, Ewa Beach, HI, Pro Se.

Chad Kalawaia, Pahoa, HI, Pro Se.

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 44) WITH PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND

Helen Gillmor, United States District Judge

On August 4, 2003, a jury in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, found Plaintiff Roynes J. Dural II guilty of one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree and four counts of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to Hawaii state law. Plaintiff Dural was sentenced to an open 20-year sentence.

On February 27, 2018, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion that vacated Plaintiff's convictions.

On May 9, 2018, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, for a new trial.

On November 27, 2019, the City and County of Honolulu filed a Motion to Nolle Prosequi Without Prejudice before the Circuit Court, seeking more time to proceed with the charges against Plaintiff Dural on remand.

On January 3, 2020, the Hawaii State Circuit Court, on remand, denied the Motion to Nolle Prosequi Without Prejudice and dismissed the case with prejudice against Dural over the City and County of Honolulu's objection.

On November 24, 2021, after the state charges were dismissed, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint against the City and County of Honolulu, Detective Sheryl Sunia, and various other individual Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges various federal and state law claims, asserting the Hawaii state court prosecution and convictions were improperly pursued and that the underlying witnesses lied in order to convict Plaintiff Dural.

Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Motion to Dismiss was filed on June 16, 2022. Defendant City and County of Honolulu asserts that the claims against it are time-barred and that Plaintiff otherwise failed to state a claim against it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART, WITH PARTIAL LEAVE TO AMEND.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff Roynes J. Dural II filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 37).

On June 16, 2022, Defendant City and County of Honolulu filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 44).

On June 22, 2022, the Court issued a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 47).

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 48).

On July 29, 2022, Defendant City and County of Honolulu filed its Reply. (ECF No. 49).

The same day, Defendant City and County of Honolulu filed an Amended Reply. (ECF No. 50).

On August 3, 2022, the Court issued a Minute Order stating that it elected to decide the Motion without a hearing pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c). (ECF No. 51).

BACKGROUND

According to the First Amended Complaint:

I. Plaintiff Was Convicted In Hawaii State Court On Multiple Counts Of Sexual Assault of a Minor

On July 14, 2001, Defendant Vibiana Kealoha-Wong and her then-minor daughter, Defendant Shyla Combis, reported to the Honolulu Police Department that Plaintiff Roynes J. Dural II had sexually assaulted the minor child, Defendant Combis, on multiple occasions. (First Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 28, 29, ECF No. 37). The mother and daughter, Defendants Kealoha-Wong and Combis, made additional reports to police on July 24, 2001 and August 3, 2001, including a report to Detective Sheryl Sunia. (Id. at ¶¶ 30, 33).

Plaintiff alleges that he did not sexually assault Defendant Combis. Plaintiff claims that the true perpetrators were Defendant Nathan Slutter (Defendant Kealoha-Wong's husband) and Defendant Chad Kalawaia. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-20). Plaintiff claims that investigators knew or should have known that Defendants Slutter and Kalawaia were the true perpetrators of the assaults. (Id. ¶¶ 68-73).

On December 20, 2002, Plaintiff was indicted in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, charging Dural with one count of Sexual Assault in the First Degree and four counts of Sexual Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to Hawaii State law. (Id. at ¶ 62).

On January 29, 2003,¹ Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to the Indictment. (Id. at ¶ 63).

On August 4, 2003, following a three-day trial, Plaintiff was convicted of the charges in the Indictment. (Id. at ¶ 74). Plaintiff was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

In or around December 2011, Plaintiff was paroled after serving eight years in prison. (Id. ¶ 100).

II. Plaintiff's Convictions Were Overturned

On February 27, 2018, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion that vacated Plaintiff's convictions.² (Id. ¶ 102).

On May 9, 2018, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued judgment on appeal and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, for a new trial.

According to the First Amended Complaint, the City and County of Honolulu continued to pursue charges against Plaintiff through 2018 and 2019. (Id. ¶ 169).

On remand before the Hawaii Circuit Court, on November 27, 2019, the City and County of Honolulu filed a "Motion to Nolle Prosequi Without Prejudice," seeking to drop the charges against Plaintiff without prejudice. (Id. at ¶¶ 108, 172). Plaintiff alleges the City filed the motion in order to provide Defendant Combis more time to decide whether she would be willing to testify against Plaintiff Dural after the long period of time since the first trial. (Id.)

On or around January 3, 2020, the trial court denied the City's motion and dismissed the charges with prejudice. (Id. at ¶ 110).

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the federal District Court for the District of Hawaii. (ECF No. 1).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss a complaint as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where it fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must presume all allegations of material fact to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Id.

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). 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. Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

The complaint "must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively" and "must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. Scope of the Order and Applicable Law

A. This Order Is Limited To Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44)

As a preliminary matter, this Order is limited to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant City and County of Honolulu on June 16, 2022, as to the claims against it. (ECF No. 44).

The First Amended Complaint asserts 15 Counts total. The claims are brought against several Individual Defendants (Sheryl Sunia, Vibiana Kealoha-Wong, Shyla Combis, Chad Kalawaia, and Nathan Slutter) as well as against the Defendant City and County of Honolulu. (ECF No. 37).

Counts I-IV are brought against certain of the Individual Defendants, in their individual capacities only, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Counts V-XV are claims brought against both the Defendant City and County of Honolulu and certain Individual Defendants pursuant to Hawaii state law.

The Order addresses only Counts V-XV as brought against Defendant City and County of Honolulu. The claims against the individually named Defendants Sheryl Sunia, Vibiana Kealoha-Wong, Shyla Combis, Chad Kalawaia, and Nathan Slutter are not subject to the Motion to Dismiss and are not addressed in this Order.

B. Applicable Law

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint invokes federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 2, ECF No. 37).

The Court applies Hawaii state substantive law to the state law claims. Mason and Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Intern. LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011).

The federal pleading standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal applies to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and the Court applies federal procedural law in evaluating the Defendant City and County's Motion to Dismiss. Ye Jiang v. Zhong Fang, Civ. NO. 20-00100 JAO-KJM, 2020 WL 6889169, *3 (D. Haw. Nov. 23, 2020).

II. Plaintif...