Raymond v. Cnty. of Kauai

CAMERON RAYMOND, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KAUAI; KAUAI POLICE DEPARTMENT;DARRYL D. PERRY; ISAIAH SARSONA; JERALD KIM;SANDY WAKUMOTO; WILCOX MEMORIAL HOSPITAL;JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10;DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10;AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, Defendants.

Civ. No. 15-00212 ACK-RLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

June 26, 2017

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KAUAI'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR ALTERNATIVELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH DEFENDANTS PERRY, SARSONA, KIM, AND WAKUMOTO HAVE FILED A JOINDER AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT WILCOX MEMORIAL HOSPITAL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant County of Kauai's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or Alternatively Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66,¹ to which Defendants Darryl D. Perry, Isaiah Sarsona, Jerald Kim, and Sandy Wakumoto have filed a Joinder, ECF No. 70, as follows:

(1) As to Defendants Perry, Sarsona, Kim, and Wakumoto, the Court GRANTS their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's official capacity claims. These claims are construed against the County of Kauai and DISMISSED against the officers in their official capacity WITH PREJUDICE.

(2) As to Defendant County of Kauai and the individual capacity claims against Defendant Sarsona,² the Court GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts 2-4 and 7. Counts 2-4 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Count 7 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts 1, 5, and 8-10.³ The Court further DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 5, 6, and 8-10.

(3) As to the individual capacity claims against Defendants Perry, Kim, and Wakumoto, the CourtGRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts 1-5 and 7-10. Counts 1-5 and 8-10 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Count 7 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court further DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 6.⁴

(4) As to the Doe Defendants, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court also GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant Wilcox Memorial Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71. The Court GRANTS summary judgment on Counts 1-7, and 10. The Court DENIES summary judgment on Counts 8 and 9.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff Cameron Raymond ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Raymond") filed a Complaint against Defendants County of Kauai (the "County"); Darryl D. Perry ("Chief Perry"), in his individual and official capacity; Isaiah Sarsona ("Officer Sarsona"), in his individual and officialcapacity; Jerald Kim ("Officer Kim"), in his individual and official capacity; Sandy Wakumoto ("Officer Wakumoto"), in his individual and official capacity (together with Defendants Perry, Sarsona, Kim, and Wakumoto, the "individual officers," and collectively with the County, "the County Defendants"); Wilcox Memorial Hospital ("WMH"); Thomas Hemmingway, in his individual and official capacity; and Dallen Jones, in his individual and official capacity. Complaint ¶¶ 4-11. On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendants Thomas Hemmingway and Dallen Jones. ECF No. 7.

The Complaint asserts ten counts. Counts 1 through 4, arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state claims of excessive use of force; abuse of authority and failure to supervise; deliberate indifference; and "pattern of conduct." Complaint ¶¶ 111-28. Counts 5 through 10 assert claims of negligence; false imprisonment; medical negligence; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"). Id. ¶¶ 129-45.

Plaintiff had initially retained and was represented by counsel in this action. However, on April 26, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff. ECF No. 50. The Magistrate Judge granted the Motion to Withdraw on May 20, 2016 andPlaintiff proceeded pro se. ECF No. 62.

On June 14, 2016, the County filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or Alternatively for Summary Judgment ("County Motion"), along with a Concise Statement of Facts in Support of that Motion ("County CSF"). ECF Nos. 66, 67. The individual officers filed a Joinder to the County's Motion, seeking the same relief sought by the County. ECF No. 70. On June 15, 2016, WMH filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("WMH Motion") along with a Concise Statement of Facts in Support of their Motion ("WMH CSF"). ECF Nos. 71, 72.

After Plaintiff's two unsuccessful attempts to submit his opposition to Defendants' motions pro se (ECF Nos. 93, 97), and Plaintiff's request for the Court to appoint an attorney to represent him, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 101. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed his application to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Magistrate Judge granted on December 20, 2016. ECF Nos. 103, 105. On January 18, 2017, the Court appointed pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of opposing Defendants' Motions. ECF No. 108.

On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed oppositions to Defendants' motions ("Pl. County Opp." and "Pl. WMH Opp."), along with concise statements of facts in support of his oppositions ("Pl. County Opp. CSF" and "Pl. WMH Opp. CSF"),which were subsequently re-filed to meet the Local Rules' requirements on May 12, 2017. ECF Nos. 127-130. On May 16, 2017, the County and WMH filed replies to Plaintiff's oppositions. ECF Nos. 132, 133. The Court held a hearing on Defendants' motions on Tuesday, May, 30, 2017.

At the Court's hearing on Defendants' Motions, the Court noted that the Kauai Police Department is not a proper party in this case because the Kauai Police Department is not an independent legal entity. See Fisher v. Kealoha, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1214 (D. Haw. 2012) (Kay, J.); Dowkin v. Honolulu Police Dep't, CIV. 10-00087 SOM/LEK, 2010 WL 4961135, at *3 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2010). The Court also noted the unclear language in Plaintiff's Complaint regarding whether his claims were alleged against the County of Kauai, the Kauai Police Department, or both. See Complaint ¶ 4. At the hearing, counsel for the parties stipulated that Plaintiff's alleged claims are against the County of Kauai, that attorneys for the County of Kauai, Kauai Police Department represent the County of Kauai, and that the County of Kauai brought the current Motion (ECF No. 66). The stipulation was subject to attorneys for Plaintiff noting that they were only appointed to represent Plaintiff for the current motions.

On May 31, 2017, the Court entered a minute order directing the parties to file a stipulation as stated above anddirecting Plaintiff and counsel for all parties to sign the stipulation. ECF No. 134. On June 16, 2017, the parties filed the stipulation with the Court, which was signed by counsel and Plaintiff and approved by the Court. ECF No. 163. The Court has altered the caption of the case accordingly.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2013, Officer Kim and Officer Sarsona visited Plaintiff's property. Complaint ¶¶ 28-29. They were responding to a call from Plaintiff's ex-wife, April Raymond, who wanted them to conduct a welfare check on her and Plaintiff's children, who were staying at Plaintiff's home. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff and his ex-wife have joint custody of their children. Id. ¶ 23.

The officers entered Plaintiff's property without a warrant. Id. ¶ 30. They came up to his house window. Id. ¶ 31. Through the window, the officers asked Plaintiff if he would come outside to talk to them. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff, then, went outside and shook Officer Kim's hand. Id. ¶ 35. Officer Kim then grabbed Plaintiff's arm and said, "Come walk with me. I want to talk to you." Id. ¶ 36. They walked approximately thirty yards toward fruit trees outside Plaintiff's house. Id. ¶ 37. Officer Kim then said, "What's going on?" Id. ¶ 38. Plaintiff responded that nothing was going on and that he had not done anything wrong. Id. ¶ 39. Officer Kim then walkedPlaintiff back toward his house, where Plaintiff asked to speak to Officer Sarsona. Id. ¶¶ 40-41.

Officer Sarsona then said, "Let's step off the property where we can have a little privacy and talk." Id. ¶ 42. Officer Sarsona and Plaintiff proceeded to walk off the property. Id. ¶ 43. When Plaintiff stepped off his property, Officer Sarsona asked Plaintiff to turn around. Id. ¶ 44. Officer Sarsona then handcuffed Plaintiff's hands, put ankle shackles on him, and bound his handcuffs to the ankle shackles with a chain. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff's children, who were seven and eight years old at the time, said that they felt safe with their father. Id. ¶ 49.

Plaintiff was then put in the back of the officers' police vehicle and transported to WMH. Id. ¶¶ 47, 50. When Plaintiff arrived at WMH, he was put on a hospital bed and waited for at least a couple hours. Id. ¶¶ 51-52, 56. Plaintiff complained to Officer Sarsona that his handcuffs were too tight. Id. ¶ 53. Officer Sarsona did not loosen the handcuffs until Plaintiff asked three times and Plaintiff's hands had turned purple. Id. ¶ 54.

At WMH, a doctor and social worker evaluated Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 61-64. A nurse came in and wanted to take Plaintiff's blood to perform a drug test. Id. ¶ 65. Although Plaintiff refused to have his blood taken, the nurse tookPlaintiff's blood against his will. Id. ¶ 66. During this interaction, Plaintiff was not violent or resistant. Id. ¶ 69. The results for the drug test came back negative. Id. ¶ 71.

A court order was issued authorizing Plaintiff's emergency examination and treatment at Mahelona Hospital. County CSF, Ex. 8. Shortly thereafter, another employee from WMH told Plaintiff that WMH wanted to transport him to Mahelona to be evaluated and...