Powell v. State

1

JOSEPH POWELL III, on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor offspring, J.D., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF HAWAII; COUNTY OF MAUI; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; MAUI POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants.

CIV. No. 23-00005 JAO-RT

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 7, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ECF NOS. 12 AND 13, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

JILL A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Powell III's pro se Complaint: a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12 filed by Defendants State of Hawai‘i, Department of Public Safety, and Department of Human Services (collectively, the “State Defendants”); and a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, filed by Defendants County of Maui and Maui Police Department (collectively, the “County Defendants”). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS both Motions but does so with leave to amend portions of the Complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

For relevant background, the Court provides a brief summary of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court's summary is not intended to cover every facet of the factual allegations and legal theories asserted by Plaintiff.

A. Factual Allegations

The Complaint is a federal question complaint asserting federal civil rights claims and pendant state law tort claims against the State Defendants, the County Defendants, and Doe Defendants. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The claims arise from Plaintiff's April 2019 to January 2020 incarceration at the Maui Community Correctional Center (“MCCC”) and from the foster care placement of Plaintiff's minor child, J.D., in April 2019 and January 2021 by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”). See id. at 5-13. The Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) is implicated because it oversees MCCC. See id. at 5. The Maui Police Department (“MPD”) is implicated because it effected Plaintiff's April 2019 arrest and because it extracted J.D. from Plaintiff's custody in January 2021 in order to transfer J.D. to foster care. See id. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants acted “under the color of law,” id. at 3, and that Defendants “conspired together” to commit the alleged wrongs, id. at 5. See also id. at 3-4 (alleging that “DOES 1-100” may be “co-conspirators” of the named Defendants).

The genesis of Plaintiff's claims is his 2018 “whistleblowing” activity, in which he “began advocating and spreading awareness . . . about trafficking and corruption within the [Hawai‘i] Family Court System and other State/County agencies.” Id. at 5. That whistleblowing activity caused Plaintiff to be “targeted in retaliation by the very agencies, departments and people that he was whistleblowing on.” Id. The retaliation began on April 12, 2019, when DHS employees removed J.D. from Plaintiff's custody. Id. The next day, MPD officers falsely arrested Plaintiff for fabricated charges and falsified evidence in an attempt to make the charges stick. Id. Although the attempt ultimately failed because the charges were dropped, Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned for ten months at MCCC and consequently deprived of his due process. See id at 5-6.

During the MCCC incarceration, DPS employees disparately treated and discriminated against Plaintiff based on his race, including by holding him in solitary confinement without adequate cause and subjecting him to shouts of “white power.” Id.

The retaliatory treatment continued after Plaintiff's release in January 2020. See id. at 6. Despite Plaintiff providing adequate care and safety for J.D., DHS employees committed perjury and fraud on the family court by falsely declaring that Plaintiff was homeless, with knowledge to the contrary. Id. at 6-7. Those intentionally false statements were made for the purposes of silencing Plaintiff's whistleblowing and aiding in the kidnapping of J.D. Id. at 7. The kidnapping occurred on January 5, 2021, when Plaintiff was ambushed by plain-clothed MPD officers who “forcefully ripped [J.D.'s] stroller away from [Plaintiff] and handcuffed [Plaintiff], while forcing JD into a car to be placed immediately into foster care.” Id. The basis for the officers' actions was an “unpaid minor traffic offense,” an offense for which Plaintiff was immediately released upon paying the necessary fine. Id.

J.D. was not, however, immediately released by DHS. Id. She remained in foster care due to DHS employees' “unlawful tactics,” including subjecting Plaintiff to “invasive evaluations that violate [his] individual rights to privacy under the 4th amendment” and depriving Plaintiff of his “5th amendment criminal protections [by] forcing [him] to testify and complete these evaluations.” Id. at 78; see also id. at 9-10 (accusing DHS employees of switching the requirements on Plaintiff “to continue to abuse this power to keep JD in foster care” and alleging that “Defendants retained specific providers that are sub-contracted with DHS in order to have easy access and manipulation over the reports and evaluations”). DHS employees wrongfully committed those acts as retaliation and also as discrimination based on Plaintiff's race, culture, and religion. See id. at 10.

Moreover, Plaintiff says, the State of Hawai‘i never provided a reason or cause for J.D. to be held in foster care. Id. at 8. And the State-appointed guardian ad litem conspired with DHS agents to wrongfully defame Plaintiff's character. See id. at 10. Those actions “directly deprived [Plaintiff and J.D.] of fundamental [family] rights without the [family court] having provided any of the constitutional guarantees necessary under the First Amendment to protect the rights of the minor in question.” Id. at 8.

Plaintiff eventually regained custody of J.D. after 500 days of foster care and after filing a civil complaint in a Hawai‘i state court concerning the events outlined above. See id. at 12. Yet, even while in foster care, J.D. was subjected to sexual, physical, and mental abuse, including J.D. receiving a “large hematoma and gash on her forehead” and J.D. “disclos[ing] sexual abuse in front of a DHS employee at a supervised visit, leading to a formal police report being filed with MPD.” Id. at 11. DHS and MPD failed to take proper actions to investigate the allegations of abuse against J.D., exposing her to additional pain and suffering. See id. at 11-12.

B. Legal Theories

Plaintiff asserts legal claims on behalf of himself and J.D. in seven numbered counts. See id. at 13-28. Count I appears to assert claims for deprivation of procedural and substantive due process directly under the Fourteenth Amendment and against all Defendants. See id. at 13-17. In support of those claims, Plaintiff lists fifteen ways in which Defendants violated his and/or J.D.'s due process rights. Id. at 13-15. Most of the allegations in that list are presented in the “Facts” section of Plaintiff's Complaint, summarized above, while a few are not, e.g., that Defendants “impermissibly applied a rational basis procedural standard when directly regulating core fundamental rights,” id. at 14.

Count II appears to assert a claim against all Defendants except DPS for kidnapping J.D. under the federal criminal statute 18 U.S.C. § 1201. See ECF No. 1 at 17-19.

Count III appears to assert a claim for negligent training and supervision under Hawai‘i law and against all Defendants. See id. 19-22. The Court also liberally construes Count III as asserting a liability theory of inadequate training under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), in relation to Count IV's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1 at 19-24. As for inadequate training liability, the Court interprets Count III as alleging four categories of unconstitutional actions committed by Defendants' employees: DHS and MPD employees' kidnapping J.D.; DHS and MPD employees' corrupt behavior in J.D.'s custody proceedings; DHS and MPD employees' negligently failing to prevent abuse of J.D.; and DPS employees' permitting discriminatory behavior against Plaintiff at MCCC. See id. at 19-22.

Skipping to Count V, that count appears to assert a claim for violation of equal protection (discrimination) directly under the Fourteenth Amendment and against all Defendants. See id. at 24-25.

Count VI appears to assert a claim for false imprisonment directly under the Fourteenth Amendment and against all Defendants except DHS. See id. at 25-27. Count VI also appears to assert a claim for false arrest directly under the Fourth Amendment and against all Defendants except DHS. See id. The Court also liberally construes Count VI as asserting a claim for false imprisonment under Hawai'i law. See id. As far as the Court can tell, Count VI relates to Plaintiff's ten-month incarceration at MCCC. See id.

Count VII appears to assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Hawai‘i law and against all Defendants except DPS. See id. at 2728.

Returning back to Count IV, and applying the most liberal construction in favor of pro se Plaintiff, Count IV appears to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants for the constitutional violations asserted in the other counts. See ECF No. 1 at 23-24. So, liberally construed Count IV asserts § 1983 claims for depriving Plaintiff and/or J.D. of their rights to not be falsely arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment, to not be falsely imprisoned in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count IV specifically alleges that “[a]t all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted pursuant to a policy or custom of depriving [Plaintiff and J.D.] of...