Taylor v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu

666 F.Supp.3d 1098

Tamara TAYLOR, Individually and on behalf of her minor child, N.B.; N.B., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; Hawaii State Department of Education; Terri Runge; Christine Neves; Corey Perez; Warren Ford; HPD Defendants 1-10; DOE-HI Defendants 1-10, Defendants.

CIV. NO. 22-00013 HG-KJM

United States District Court, D. Hawai'i

Signed March 31, 2023

Jongwook Philip Kim, ACLU of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, Mateo Caballero, Caballero Law LLLC, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.

Paul S. Aoki, Robert M. Kohn, Stephen Deutsch Atwell, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants City and County of Honolulu, Christine Neves, Corey Perez, Warren Ford.

Caron M. Inagaki, David Shigemi Taga, William R.K. Awong, Office of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants Hawaii State Department of Education, Terri Runge.

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 50) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

and

DENYING DEFENDANTS CHRISTINE NEVES, COREY PEREZ, AND WARREN FORD'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 51)

Helen Gillmor, United States District Judge

The case arises out of allegations that on January 10, 2020, N.B., a 10-year-old Black girl, was handcuffed and arrested by Honolulu Police Officers at her public elementary school. N.B. was allegedly arrested for her participation in creating a cartoon-style drawing with other children.

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint asserts a number of causes of action by N.B. and her mother Tamara Taylor against the City and County of Honolulu, the Hawaii State Department of Education, and several individual defendants. The individuals include the Vice-Principal of the school and the three Honolulu Police Officers who arrested and handcuffed N.B.

Defendant City and County of Honolulu filed a Motion to Dismiss as to all claims against it.

The Defendant Honolulu Police Officers Christine Neves, Corey Perez, and Warren Ford filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Defendant Officers also seek qualified immunity for the federal law causes of action against them and conditional privilege for the state law causes of action against them.

Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART.

Defendants Neves, Perez, and Ford's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 51) is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are granted LEAVE TO AMEND to file a Third Amended Complaint.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

On March 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20).

On April 4, 2022, Defendant Terri Runge filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 27).

On May 23, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Runge's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 43).

On May 25, 2022, the Court issued an ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TERRI RUNGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (ECF No. 44).

On June 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 48).

On June 22, 2022, Defendant City and County of Honolulu filed a MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 50).

On the same date, Defendants Neves, Perez, and Ford filed their MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 51).

Also on June 22, 2022, Defendant City and County of Honolulu along with Defendants Neves, Perez, and Ford filed a Motion to Unseal regarding the drawing at issue in the case. (ECF No. 52).

On July 7, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the City Defendants' Motion to Unseal. (ECF No. 58). The Court directed the Parties to engage in discovery to determine how and by whom the drawing was created, necessary facts the Court needs in order to rule on the Motion to Unseal. (Id.) Also at the hearing, the Court set a briefing schedule on the City Defendants' June 22, 2022 Motions to Dismiss. (Id.)

On September 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 107).

On the same date, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant Officers Neves, Perez, and Ford's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 104).

On September 28, 2022, the Court held a further hearing on the City Defendants' Motion to Unseal. (ECF No. 110). The Court denied the City Defendants' Motion to Unseal. (Id.) At the hearing, the Court set the hearing date on the City Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (Id.)

On October 7, 2022, the City Defendants filed their Replies. (ECF Nos. 111 and 112).

On October 17, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order on the Parties' Discovery Dispute. (ECF No. 118).

On October 31, 2022, the City Defendants filed an Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's October 17, 2022 Discovery Order. (ECF No. 121).

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the City Defendants' Appeal of the Discovery Order. (ECF No. 124).

On November 17, 2022, the District Court issued a Minute Order denying the City Defendants' Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order. (ECF No. 125).

On December 5, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the City Defendants' June 22, 2022 Motions to Dismiss. (ECF No. 128).

BACKGROUND

The Second Amended Complaint asserts that N.B. is a Black girl with a disability. (Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") at ¶ 2, ECF No. 48). Plaintiffs allege N.B. had been diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), and that the Hawaii Department of Education had prepared a plan pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to accommodate her disability. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-31).

On January 9, 2020, when N.B. was ten-years-old, she was a student at Honowai Elementary School ("Elementary School") in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Id. at ¶ 2).

The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following facts:

Plaintiffs state that on January 9, 2020, N.B. and other children made a drawing following an incident where N.B. was bullied. (Id. at ¶ 3). The drawing, which was submitted for in camera review, depicts a girl colored in blue and red, with the girl holding what appears to be a cartoon firearm. In the drawing, there appears to be a head on the ground and various scribbles and words. Plaintiffs allege that the drawing was made with "a message for E." (Id. at ¶ 37). On the face of the drawing, however, it appears the drawing was addressed to two individuals, stating: "This is for E[] and K[]."

The drawing remains under seal. The Parties have not provided sufficient information to the Court that would support unsealing the document at this time. As the Court explained at the hearing on the Motions to Dismiss, there are questions of fact as to the authorship of the drawing, the chain of custody of the drawing, and the publication of the drawing that prevent the Court from ruling on whether to unseal the document. (Transcript of Hearing at pp. 5, 8, ECF No. 140).

The Second Amended Complaint asserts that "N.B did most of the drawing" but "other [unnamed] classmates made suggestions about its content, colored it, and wrote parts of the message." (SAC at ¶ 37, ECF No. 48). It is unclear from the record which specific portions were completed by N.B. The Second Amended Complaint does not specify who else participated in the drawing or who made which components of the drawing.

Plaintiffs allege that N.B. used drawing as a mechanism to cope with her ADHD and bullying at school. (Id. at ¶ 34). Plaintiffs assert N.B. thought the drawing was a bad idea and did not want to give it to anyone after the drawing was completed. (Id. at ¶ 38).

The Second Amended Complaint claims that one of the children involved in the drawing took it to another child, identified as K. (Id. at ¶ 39).

Plaintiffs assert that the drawing was also brought to the school's attention by K. on the day it was made, but no action was taken by school officials after they received the drawing. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 40-41).

According to the Second Amended Complaint, on the following morning, January 10, 2020, at approximately 7:40 a.m., the parent of K. went to the Elementary School. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 42). According to the Second Amended Complaint, K.'s mother "insisted that the school call the police" with respect to the drawing. (Id. at ¶ 5).

Plaintiffs claim that approximately an hour later, the Vice Principal of the Elementary School, Defendant Terri Runge, called Plaintiff Tamara Taylor at work. (Id. at ¶¶ 43, 47). According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Runge told Plaintiff Taylor that she needed to come to the Elementary School because they were about to call the police because her daughter N.B. had made a drawing and it was passed to another student. (Id. at ¶ 43). Defendant Runge told Ms. Taylor that the police were being called at the request of K.'s mother. (Id. at ¶ 44).

Defendant Runge then called the police at the request of K.'s mother. (Id. at ¶ 45).

The Second Amended Complaint states that following Defendant Runge's call to the police, Defendants Honolulu Police Officers Christine Neves, Corey Perez, and Warren Ford arrived at the Elementary School. (Id.) N.B.'s mother, Plaintiff Taylor, arrived at the Elementary School at around 10:20 a.m. (Id. at ¶ 47).

According to the Second Amended Complaint, N.B. was kept away from her mother and was not informed that her mother had arrived at the Elementary School. (Id. at ¶ 51). The Second Amended Complaint alleges that without Plaintiff Taylor's knowledge or consent and without any Miranda warnings, N.B. was interrogated by the Defendant Honolulu Police Officers and Hawaii Department of Education Staff. (Id. at ¶ 52).

The Second Amended Complaint asserts that N.B.'s mother, Plaintiff Taylor, attempted to leave the room she was brought to at the Elementary School, but she was prevented from doing so. (Id. at ¶ 53).

Plaintiffs allege N.B. was moved to the nurse's office. (Id. at ¶ 54). According to the Second...