Fuller v. Haw. Dep't of Land & Natural Res. William J. Aila

HARRIS M. FULLER, JR.; DARIUS M.K. FULLER; LANDON K. FULLER;and MICHAEL W.K. ELI, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES WILLIAM J. AILA,JR., Chairperson; and BARRY CHEUNG, Land Agent, Defendants.

CIV. NO. 14-00097 JMS-BMK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Dated: June 6, 2014

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

I. INTRODUCTION

The court has reviewed the "Amended Complaint" filed on May 7, 2014 by pro se Plaintiffs Harris M. Fuller, Jr., Darius M.K. Fuller, Landon K. Fuller, and Michael W.K. Eli (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). The court refers to it as the "Second Amended Complaint" because Plaintiffs filed a prior Amended Complaint on April 3, 2014. The court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint, but gives Plaintiffs another chance to file a proper Complaint.

Plaintiffs might have misunderstood the court's Order of April 15, 2014. That Order dismissed the April 3, 2014 Amended Complaint, and allowed Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint. Because of Plaintiffs' possible confusion, the present Order notifies Plaintiffs of the deficiencies in the Second Amended Complaint, and again explains to Plaintiffs what they must do if they want this case to continue. If Plaintiffs do not file a proper Third Amended Complaint by June 27, 2014, the court will dismiss the action and close the case file.

The Second Amended Complaint is missing the details of the previously-alleged October 2013 incidents in which Defendant Department of Land and Natural Resources ("DLNR") Chairperson, William J. Aila, Jr. ("Aila"); DLNR Land Agent, Barry Cheung ("Cheung") (collectively, "Defendants"); and/or others were claimed to have removed Plaintiffs' property, detained them without permission or a warrant, and then arrested and evicted them. These kinds of details were alleged in the April 3, 2014 Amended Complaint (and in the original Complaint of February 27, 2014), but Plaintiffs did not re-allege them in the Second Amended Complaint. Instead, the Second Amended Complaint appears to have responded to the court's April 15, 2014 Order by focusing solely on providing evidence that Aila and/or Cheung had personal involvement.

A single Complaint that combines some of the factual allegations made in all versions of the Complaint (dated February 27, 2014, April 3, 2014, and May 7, 2014) might properly allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment -- made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment -- of the U.S. Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Aila and/or Cheung. The court, however, is not authorized on its own to combine different versions of a Complaint into a single Complaint. Thus, the court cannot properly analyze whether the action should be allowed to proceed further. Plaintiffs must file a single Complaint that includes all of their factual allegations.

The court explains its ruling in detail below.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Complaint

On February 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint¹ against the DLNR itself, and Aila and Cheung (in both their individual and official capacities), which the court construed as asserting claims pursuant to (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, based on allegations of illegal search, seizure, and detention; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1986, for failure to preventa conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 to deprive Plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws; and (3) state law for negligence and emotional distress. Doc. No. 1, Compl. Among other contentions, the Complaint alleged that DLNR officers went to Plaintiffs' "family land," and, "without permission and or warrant illegally searched, seized and detained [Plaintiffs] at Kapolei Police booking Station parking lot," only to give them a citation, and "sa[y] they were sorry and let [Plaintiffs] go." Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. The Complaint further alleged that while Plaintiffs were detained, "DLNR officers and Land agents confiscated most of [Plaintiffs'] belongings, work tools, livestock, personal things and sentimental property." Id. ¶ 6. Two days later, "DLNR officers and Land agents" returned "to evict or arrest" Plaintiffs and "confiscated whatever was left still of value." Id. ¶ 7.

On March 13, 2014, the court dismissed the original Complaint (1) with prejudice as to the claims for money damages against the DLNR as a state agency (and against Aila and Cheung in their official capacities), based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; but (2) without prejudice, and with leave to amend the § 1986 and/or § 1985(3) claims. Doc. No. 7. The court did not otherwise dismiss a claim under § 1983 for a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the court explained that an amended complaint "supersedes all previously-filed complaints," and therefore, "if Plaintiffs choose to file an Amended Complaint,they must also re-allege their § 1983 and state law claims against Defendants in their individual capacities . . . along with the amended § 1986 claim." Id. at 12-13.

B. The Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 3, 2014. Doc. No. 9. Among other assertions (similar to the original Complaint), the Amended Complaint alleged that "[o]n October 22, 2013, [Cheung] and [DLNR] officers went to our family land . . . [and] posted up notices to vacate property by October 28, 2013." Id. at 3. It alleged that Aila "left a message stating that he couldn't and didn't recognize [Plaintiff Harris M. Fuller's] documents." Id. It claimed that "[o]n October 29, 2013 [DLNR] officers and land agents went to the land without permissions[,] and or issue of a warrant[,] illegally searched and seized and detained [Plaintiffs]." Id. It continued:

While we were detained [DLNR] officers and Land agents confiscated most of our belongings, work tools, livestock, personal things and sentimental properties. There was/is no inventory or receipt of belongings given by defendants for property taken. . . .

Two days later . . . officers and land agents returned to evict or arrest, gave us fifteen minutes to vacate property and confiscated anything of value that remained on the property.

Id. at 4.

On April 15, 2014, the court dismissed the Amended Complaint, without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a new Complaint that clarified the alleged personal involvement of Aila and/or Cheung. See Doc. No. 10, Order Dismissing Amended Complaint. As to a § 1983 claim, the April 15, 2014 Order told Plaintiffs, among other things, that "[a]lthough the Amended Complaint alleges that DLNR land agents and officers illegally detained Plaintiffs and searched and seized Plaintiffs' property, Plaintiffs do not allege any personal involvement in those specific activities by either Aila or Cheung." Id. at 8. The Order concluded "[t]hus, the Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim that Aila and Cheung violated Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment." Id.

The April 15, 2014 Order also dismissed claims under §§ 1985 & 1986, concluding that "the Amended Complaint does not allege facts showing a conspiracy between Cheung and Aila, or specific acts done by Cheung and Aila in furtherance of such conspiracy." Id. at 11. The court allowed leave to amend, explaining that

[a] Second Amended Complaint will supercede the prior pleadings and must be complete in itself without reference to prior . . . superceded pleadings. Thus, if Plaintiffs choose to file a Second Amended Complaint, they must also re-allege their state law claims against Defendants in their individual capacities (sufficient to comply with Rules 8 and 12(b)(6)) along with the amended federal law claims.

Id. (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). The court also indicated it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for negligence or emotional distress if Plaintiffs failed to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 12.

C. The Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed their "[Second] Amended Complaint for Personal Injury and Property Damages" on May 7, 2014, Doc. No. 12-4, which the court is reviewing in the present Order. In responding to the April 15, 2014 Order, Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to provide proof that Aila and/or Cheung had some personal involvement in the events described in the Amended Complaint (they filed a picture and two affidavits of witnesses as exhibits, and referenced some of the witness statements in their allegations). See Doc. Nos. 12-1, 12-2, 12-3. Plaintiffs did not, however, re-allege or describe the October 2013 events as they did in their prior Complaints.

Specifically, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that, on the morning of October 29, 2013, "DLNR officers and land agents and Barry Cheung . . . went to [Plaintiffs'] families [sic] land/residence allegedly to evict and arrest." Doc. No. 12-4, Second Am. Compl. at 3. It attaches an affidavit from witness DaleDeTroye, who states that "DLNR Enforcement officers handcuff[ed] and remove[d Plaintiffs] from Waianae Valley Ranch." Doc. No. 12-3, Pls.' Ex. 9, DeTroye Aff. It further alleges that a DLNR officer told Kaipo Kamanu-Kauanui, a witness who was video-recording this event, "to turn off the camera and leave because this is a government operation or he would be arrested too." Doc. No. 12-4, Second Am. Compl. at 3. Kamanu-Kauanui "watched [Aila and Cheung] walking and looking around on the plaintiffs [sic] land and giving orders to the DLNR officers and land agents to remove belongings and properties of plaintiffs." Id. at 3-4. Kamanu-Kauanui states that "I seen the officers arrest [Plaintiffs], after they was gone the land agents along with [Aila and Cheung] confescate [sic] alot [sic] of there [sic] belongings and tools." Doc. No. 12-2, Pls.' Ex. 8, Kamanu-Kauanui Aff. Similarly, DeTroye states that "[s]tate workers . . . removed . . . a...