Douglas v. University of Hawaii, 1:21-cv-00217

Plaintiff James T. Douglas sued the University of Hawai‘i and several officials after the University decommissioned his laboratory and disposed of its contents, asserting state-law conversion and federal First Amendment claims.
On August 7, 2023 the court granted summary judgment in part: it dismissed Douglas’s conversion claim (Count 5) and his First Amendment damages claim (Count 1) as barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and H.R.S. § 304A-108; Douglas’s First Amendment claims for injunctive/declaratory relief survived.
Douglas filed a motion for reconsideration arguing (1) the court manifestly erred in dismissing conversion because the property included irreplaceable research materials and personal items, and (2) newly discovered evidence supports amending the Complaint to add Provost Michael Bruno and assert First Amendment retaliation.
The court reviewed the record and the August 7 Order, noting it had addressed disposal of both biological and research contents and that the University had given Douglas opportunities to remove personal items and had asserted ownership of lab materials.
The court denied reconsideration: it found no manifest error regarding conversion (conversion is barred by sovereign immunity and H.R.S. § 304A-108), and held that a request to amend the complaint based on newly discovered evidence is not properly resolved in a Rule 60 motion for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court manifestly erred by granting summary judgment on the conversion claim	Douglas: court mischaracterized the property; lab contents included irreplaceable research data, personal/professional equipment, and teaching materials, so conversion should proceed	Defendants/ Court: record shows University ownership and notice to remove items; conversion barred by Eleventh Amendment and H.R.S. § 304A-108	Denied — no manifest error; conversion barred by sovereign immunity and § 304A-108 (and Douglas previously conceded Eleventh Amendment bar)
Whether newly discovered evidence warrants permitting amendment to add Provost Bruno and assert First Amendment retaliation via reconsideration	Douglas: new facts (Dean recommended separation June 30; Provost allegedly accepted Aug 16 and offered a lower position; courses reassigned Aug 17) support retaliation claim and adding Bruno	Defendants/ Court: amendment is a separate relief not adjudicated on reconsideration; evidence could not properly be considered to reopen the prior summary-judgment ruling	Denied as a reconsideration vehicle; court declined to decide leave to amend here and indicated Douglas may file a separate motion to amend

Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for motions for reconsideration under Rule 60)
Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (whether to grant reconsideration is within the court’s discretion)
Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Dep’t of Educ., 951 F. Supp. 1484 (D. Haw. 1996) (state statutory waiver of tort immunity does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court)
Doe ex rel. Doe v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 351 F. Supp. 2d 998 (D. Haw. 2004) (same principle regarding state-law waivers and federal Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Mukaida v. Hawaii, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Haw. 2001) (state statutory language preserved university’s sovereign immunity)