Case Documentl Filed 12/30/15 MICHAEL J. GREEN #4451 Attorney at Law 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hawei'i 96813 Telephone (808) 521~3336 Facsimile (808) 566*0347 E?mail: miohaeljgreen8hawaii.rr.com RICHARD D. GRONNA #5391 Attorney at Law 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hewei'i 96813 felephone (808) 523?2441 Facsimile (808) 566?0347 Email: Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMIE KALANI RICE Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNZTED STATES DISTRICT COURT PagelD 1 DISTRICT OF HAWAII JAMIE KALANI RICE, CIVIL NO. Plaintiff, SUMMONS VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation; LOUIS MING DOES 1w20, Defendants. 3 COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR COMES NOW Plaintiff JAMIE KALANI RICE, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and for a Complaint against the above? named Defendants, alleges and avers as follows: INTRODUCTION Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID 2 1. This is an action to redress the deprivation under color of law, ordinances, regulations, customs, policies, practices and/or usages or rights, privileges and immunities secured to the Plaintiffs by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, inter alia, and 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985 et seq. Plaintiff further invokes the pendant jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide claims arising out of State law and thereby alleges various State Common Law causes of action under a common nucleus of operative facts. 2. Plaintiff contends that he was falsely and unlawfully detained, unlawfully assaulted, battered, and arrested by City and County of Honolulu Police Officers and persons acting under their direction and control, in violation of applicable provisions of both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Hawai?i. 3. Plaintiff further contends that he was subjected to various other State Common Law causes of actions arising out of a common nucleus of operative facts. JURISBICTION 4. Plaintiff brings this claim for violation of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sections Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID 3 1983 and 1985, the Constitution of the State of Hawai?i as well as various common law causes of action. 5. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1332(a)(l), and 1343(a)(3), as this case involves a Federal question, and a deprivation of the Plaintift?s civil rights PARTIES 6. Plaintiff JAMIE KALANI RICE, is and at all times mentioned herein was a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai?i. 7. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU is a duly organized municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Hawai?i. At all times mentioned herein Defendant City and County of Honolulu was the employer of Defendants LOUIS KEALOHA, and MING WANG who performed all the herein acts for and in the name of the Defendant, City and County of Honolulu. 8. Defendant, LOUIS KEALOHA (hereinafter referred to as Defendant KEALOHA), was at all times relevant to the incidents which are the subject of this lawsuit, the Chief of the Honolulu Police Department. He is the responsible party for supervising the training, instruction, discipline, control, and conduct of Defendant Police Officers. He is also charged with promulgating all orders, rules, instructions, and regulations of the City and Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID 4 County of Honolulu Police Department including but not limited to those orders, rules, instructions, and regulations, concerning the use of force by City and County of Honolulu Police Officers. He is sued in both his individual and official capacity. Upon information and belief, Defendant Police Chief KEALOHA is a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. 9. Defendant, MING WANG (hereinafter referred to as Defendant WANG), was at all times relevant to the incidents that are the subject of this lawsuit, a Police Officer for the City and County of Honolulu Police Department. The acts of Defendant WANG, which are the subject of this lawsuit, was undertaken in the course and scope of his employment for Defendant Municipality City and County of Honolulu. He is sued in both his individual and official capacity. Upon information and belief, Defendant WANG is and has been a resident and citizen of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai?i. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that other individuals acting in the capacity of Honolulu Police Officers assisted, aided and abetted in committing the acts as more fully set forth in the complaint, are named as DOES lw20, and will seek leave to amend the complaint to add said individuals when their names, acts and omissions giving rise to the complaint are more fully known. Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID 5 11. At all times mentioned herein, all named individual Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment and as the agents of Defendant Municipality City and County of Honolulu. All of their actions were tolerated, condoned and ratified by Defendant Municipality City and County of Honolulu, and by their superiors. Defendant Municipality City and County of Honolulu is liable for the acts of the individual Defendants under the doctrine of Respondent Superior. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. On or about September 10, 2014 at approximately 12:00 p.m. Plaintiff was at the beach in Nanakuli when he saw a Hawaiian Monk Seal lying on the shoreline. 13. Plaintiff approached the seal and sat approximately three feet away from it. 14. Plaintiff began to pick up sand and rubbed the sand between his hands as he spoke and chanted to the seal. 15. As the Plaintiff sat next to the seal there were two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration volunteers who notified the Honolulu Police Department that the Plaintiff was sitting next to the seal and possibly was harassing the seal. 16. Honolulu Police Officer Ming Wang responded to the call. 17. Officer Wang approached the Plaintiff and asked the Plaintiff to move away from the seal. As he spoke to the Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID 6 Plaintiff he removed his pepper spray canister from his belt and then put it back and then retrieved his baton. AS'Wang continued to speak to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff stood up and began to walk away from the seal down the beach. 18. As the Plaintiff walked down the beach Officer Wang followed behind the Plainitiff. 19. The Plaintiff continued to walk along the beach and stopped where he had placed his belongings on the beach. 20. Wang then pulled out his can of pepper spray and sprayed the Plaintiff in the face. As the 9laintiff stood motionless Wang pulled out his baton and began to strike the Plaintiff in the arms, torso, and legs until he fell to the ground. 21. Plaintiff at no time threatened or struck Wang or otherwise physically resisted Wang, and did not pose a threat to Wang. 22. Defendants, and each of them, took steps to write reports that altered the events as they actually took place so as to justify Wang use force against the Plaintiff to effectuate his arrest. 23. As a result of the excessive force that was used against the Plaintiff by the Defendants Plaintiff was severely injured and has ever since suffered from serious medical conditions and continues to suffer physical, pain and distress. Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID 7 COUNT I (Violation of Civil Rights) 24. Plaintiff reallges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 23 of the Complaint as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. 25. Acting under color of law and the authority of the Defendant Municipality, Defendant Police Officers, and each of them, intentionally, wantonly, willfully, with malice, deliberate indifference, and in negligence for Plaintiff?s rights caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his Constitutional rights, including but not limited to those under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Untied State Constitution by: a. Arresting the Plaintiff while he was engaged in speech that was Constitutionally protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution; b. Using a degree of force that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and in violation of the Plaintiff?s rights to be free of an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; c. Depriving the Plaintiff of his liberty by subjecting him to unwarranted and unreasonable restraints in his person without due process in Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID 8 violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution; d. Subjecting the ?laintiff to punishment without the benefit of a trial by jury in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution; and e. Depriving the Plaintiff of his rights under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. 26. Defendants, and each of them, under color of law, wantonly, willfully intentionally, with malice, deliberate indifference and in negligence to Plaintiff?s rights, caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutional rights including but not limited to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by: a. Failing to supervise properly the training and conduct of Defendant Police Officers; b. Failing to enforce the laws of the State of Hawaii, and the City and County of Honolulu; c. Failing to promulgate and issue rules of the Police Manual; d. inadequately supervising the training and conduct of Defendant Police Officers; e. Failing to enforce the laws of the State of Hawaii and the City and County of Honolulu; Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID 9 f. Issuing vague, confusing, and contradictory policies concerning the use of force that are inconsistent with the requirements of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. 27. Defendant City and County of Honolulu, under color of law, wantonly, willfully, intentionally, with malice, deliberate indifference, in negligence for Plaintiff?s rights, authorized, permitted, and tolerated the custom and practice of the unconstitutional and excessive use of force by members of the Honolulu Police Department, in particular, by Defendant Police Officers and their agents by failing to: a. Appoint, promote, train, and supervise members of the Honolulu Police Department who would enforce the laws in effect in the State of Hawaii and the City and County of Honolulu and who would protect the constitutional rights of the people of the City and County of Honolulu. b. Require Defendant KEALOHA, Police Chief of the Honolulu Police Department to promulgate procedures and policies for the use of force that were consistent with the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution; and Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID 10 o. By permitting the policy and custom of using unreasonable force to exist and to be followed by the Honolulu Police Department. 28. All of the aforesaid acts thereby proximately causing the deprivation of Plaintiff?s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. COUNT ll (Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights) 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 28 of the Complaint as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. 30. Plaintiff, as was alleged by Defendants, was not engaged in a manner of disorderly conduct or other such conduct that justified or required the use of force by.the Defendants at the time of Plaintiff?s arrest. 31. The criminal charges against the Plaintiff by Defendant WANG was a mere pretext to provide color for the arrest and punishment of the Plaintiff. 32. In order to justify the excessive use of force by Defendant WANG prepared reports and other documents that stated that the Plaintiff was acting in a manner that justified their use of force to effectuate the arrest. Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID 11 33. In order to further justify the unconstitutional acts of the Defendants as set forth, Defendants DOES 1?20 while acting in their supervisorial position as Sergeants overseeing and approving acts of the Defendants signed off on the reports prepared by the defendants to justify their excessive use of force. 34. Plaintiff has been subjected, by the above recited acts, to the deprivation by Defendants, under color of law and of the customs and usages of the State of Hawaii, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Constitution and law of the United States, particularly his right of association and speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution, his right to security of person and freedom from arrest, except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, his right to be informed of the true nature and cause of the accusation against him, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution; his right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment; his right against cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment; and his right to the equal protection under the laws guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. 35. In doing the acts and things above complained of, Defendants were conspirators engaged in a scheme and conspiracy Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID 12 designed and intended to deny and deprive Plaintiff of rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as hereinabove enumerated and to cover up their unlawful excessive use of force against the Plaintiff. 36. As a direct consequence and result of the acts of Defendants hereinabove complained of, Plaintiff was deprived of liberty for a substantial period of time, suffered anxiety, distress, discomfort, and embarrassment. His reputation was impaired and he had to spend sums of money and time in traveling to and free the Courthouse to defend himself against the charges brought against him and to obtain medical care and treatment for the injuries that he suffered. COUNT (Assault and Battery) 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 36 of the Complaint as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. 38. The abovewdescribed excessive force that was used against the Plaintiff by Defendants on the above referenced date constitutes assault and battery against the Plaintiff under the laws of the State of Hawaii. 39. As a result of the assault and battery upon the Plaintiff by the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered severe and permanent physical injuries and distress. Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID 13 40. In doing the aforesaid acts, Defendant, WANG acted in an intentional, malicious, wanton and willful manner with a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. . COUNT IV (Gross Negligence/Negligence) 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 40 of the Complaint as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. 42. The above describe acts of the Defendants and each of them on the above describe date constitute negligence and gross negligence under the laws of the State of Hawaii. 43. Defendant, WANG were grossly negligent and/or negligent in that they supported the above described injuries to Plaintiff by failing to properly supervise and control the conduct of Defendant WANG and other unknown officers. 44. Defendant WANG and other unknown officers were negligence and grossly negligent by their failure to adhere to department policy and by causing severe personal injury to the Plaintiff. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages all in an amount according to proof. a 13 Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID 14 46. In doing the aforesaid acts, Defendants KEALOHA, and WANG acted in an intentional, malicious, wanton and willful manner with a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. COUNT (Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 46 of the Complaint as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. 48. Defendant Police Officers in doing the aforementioned acts acted in an extreme and outrageous manner, intentionally and with reckless disregard for Plaintiff?s welfare, inflicted severe and permanent emotional distress in Plaintiff. 49. Defendant Police Chief negligently caused the above described injuries to Plaintiff by failing to properly train, supervise, and control the conduct of Defendant Police Officers. SO. Defendant Municipality negligently caused the above described injuries to Plaintiff by failing to properly train, supervise and control the conduct of the Defendant Police Officers and are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the tortuous conduct of the individual Defendants. Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID 15 51. As a proximate result of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages all in an amount according to proof. 52. In doing the aforesaid acts, Defendants KEALOHA, and WANG acted in an intentional, malicious, wanton and willful manner with a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. COUNT VI (False Imprisonment) 53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs l~52 of .the Complaint as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. 54. Defendant WANG, and other unknown officers and their agents, in doing the aforementioned acts arrested the Plaintiff as a pretext to cover up the fact that the Plaintiff was not engaged in disorderly conduct or otherwise interfering in the execution of their duties. Said Defendants falsely detained and imprisoned the Plaintiff. 55. Defendants KEALOHA negligently caused the above described injuries to Plaintiff by failing to properly.train, supervise, and control the conduct of Defendant Police Officers. 56. Defendant Municipality as the employer of Defendant folice Officers is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the tortuous conduct of the individual Defendants. 15 Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 19 57. Plaintiff, PageID 16 As a proximate result of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff has suffered damages all in an amount according to proof. 58. WANG acted in an intentional, malicious, In doing the aforesaid acts, Defendants KEALOHA, and wanton and willful manner with a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment: 3? For general damages as to all Defendants according to proof; 2. For special damages as to all Defendants according to proof; 3. For compensatory damages as to all Defendants according DATED: Honolulu, to proofFor and Punitive Damages as to Defendants KEALOHA and attorney?s fees pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Section 1988 costs and fees of bringing suit; such other and further relief as the Court is just proper. Hawaii, DEC 2 9 EMS MICHAEL J. GREEN RICEARD D. GRONNA Attorney for Plaintiff JAMIE KELANZ RICE Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 19 PageID 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF JAMIE KALANI RICE, CIVIL NO. Plaintiff, DEMAND FOR JURY vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation; 22061 MING DOES Defendanta. DEMAND FOR JURY COMES NOW, JAMIE KALANI RICE, by and through his undersigned attorney, and heraby demands a trial by jury on all issues trial herein. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii MICHAEL J. GREEN RICHARD D. GRONNA Attorney for Plaintiff JAMIE KALANI RICE Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 19 PageID 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF JAMIE KALANI RICE, CIVIL NO. Plaintiff, SUMMONS vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation; LOUIS MING noes 1?20, Defendants. SUMMONS To: CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Municipal Corporation; LOUIS MING DOES 1?20 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff?s attorney, whose name and address are: MICHAEL J. GREEN #4451 Attorney at Law 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813 Telephone (808) 521*3336 Case Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 19 of 19 PageID 19 Feceimile (808) 566~0347 Emmail: michaeljgreen8hawaii.rr.com RICHARD D. GRONNA #5391 Attorney at Law 841 Bishop Street, Suite 2201 Honolulu, Hawai?i 96813 Telephone (808) 523?2441 Facsimile (808) 566w0347 Email: If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT Date: Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk