869 F. Supp. 2d 1203
D. Haw.2012Background
- This is a federal civil rights action alleging denial of a firearm permit and related rights violations.
- Plaintiff Fisher alleges a policy or custom by the City, HPD, and Kealoha (in his official capacity) violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Plaintiff previously pled guilty in Hawaii Family Court in 1997 to Harassment (two counts) and surrendered firearms; an order in 1998 permitted return of firearms under conditions, which HPD complied with.
- In fall 2009 Plaintiff was denied a permit to acquire a firearm based on the prior harassment conviction; HPD informed him denial was tied to that conviction and allegedly to HPD’s “custom, practice and policy.”
- H.R.S. § 134-7 bans firearm possession for felons and certain violence offenses; H.R.S. § 134-2 governs permits; the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) is invoked in this context.
- The City moves to dismiss Counts I and II as to the City and HPD; Kealoha moves to dismiss several claims, including official-capacity damages and due process theories; the court grants in part and denies in part these motions and allows amendment with prejudice as to HPD and Fifth Amendment theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Complaint states a § 1983 claim against the City. | Fisher alleges a policy or custom caused denial of rights. | City liability requires a policy or moving force; mere reliance on subordinate actions is insufficient. | Count I against City dismissed; no plausible Monell policy shown. |
| Whether the Doe Defendants may be dismissed. | Doe defendants are necessary to identify all responsible parties. | Doe pleading disfavored; identities not alleged; dismissal without prejudice. | Doe Defendants dismissed without prejudice; amendment allowed. |
| Whether HPD is a separate legal entity from the City for § 1983 purposes. | HPD should be treated separately from City for liability. | HPD is not an independent entity; counts against HPD should be dismissed. | HPD dismissed with prejudice as a party. |
| Whether Plaintiff states a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. | Failure to provide meaningful opportunity to be heard and to review denial violated due process. | Procedural due process requirements not clearly established against the City/Kealoha; claim should fail. | Count II's due process claim survives against Kealoha in individual capacity; dismissed as to Fifth Amendment claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom moving force behind rights violation)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.2011) (pleading must plausibly suggest entitlement to relief under Starr standard)
- Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir.2007) (existing pleading standard for municipal liability can withstand a motion to dismiss with bare policy allegations)
- Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (moving force and causal link required for § 1983 municipal liability)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense)