Dawkins v. City of Honolulu
761 F. Supp. 2d 1080
D. Haw.2010Background
- On March 24, 2009, Dawkins went to Windward Community Federal Credit Union to open an account and asked questions about required documents.
- A supervisor voiced inability to answer his questions, and the supervisor then called the police to remove Dawkins from the premises.
- Police officers Hamrick and Tong arrived; Hamrick recognized Dawkins as a Kailua resident and knew he had mental problems.
- Dawkins was tasered, punched, and kicked by Hamrick, then arrested; the charges were later dismissed due to his mental status.
- The Complaint asserts Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and related Hawaii tort claims; the City moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Judgment granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrestwithoutprobable_cause under Fourth Amendment | Dawkins was arrested without probable cause. | City argues lack of plausible basis for false arrest claim. | Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim survives; 1981 claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Section 1981 claim for race-based contract denial | Dawkins alleges race-based discrimination affecting contract rights. | City contends no racial discrimination by City or officers; Counts I–II target Windward Bank. | Count III 1981 claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Dueprocess/Equalprotection/Illegalsearchand_seizure | Due process and equal protection claims; illegal search/seizure; excessive force claims. | More-specific-provision rule governs due process claim; equal protection lacks discriminatory intent. | Due process claim dismissed; equal protection claim dismissed with leave to amend; illegal search/seizure claim dismissed with leave to amend; excessive force claim survives; negligence claim survives. |
| Negligentsupervision/Falsearrest under state law | City liable for negligent supervision/training; false arrest. | Public duty doctrine and scope of employment limit liability; negligence claim contested. | Respondeat superior false arrest survives; negligent supervision claims dismissed with leave to amend; Plaintiff may amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires more than mere speculation to state a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy, practice, or failure to train/supervise)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)
- Ruf v. Honolulu Police Dept., 972 P.2d 1081 (Haw. 1999) (Hawaii public duty doctrine discussion; police protection doctrine)
- Pulawa v. GTE Hawaiian Tel., 143 P.3d 1205 (Haw. 2006) (negligent supervision claim requires outside-scope conduct to state claim)
- Williams v. Aona, 210 P.3d 501 (Haw. 2009) (battery elements; assault/battery standards in Hawaii)
- Alexander v. City and County of Honolulu, 545 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (D. Haw. 2008) (municipal liability for intentional torts admissible under respondeat superior)