Case: Davis v. Abercrombie

1:11-cv-00144 | U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii

Filed Date: Feb. 7, 2011

Closed Date: 2017

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 7, 2011, six Hawaii residents of Native Hawaiian ancestry held in for-profit prisons filed this state court class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. Each plaintiff had been transferred to one of two private prisons in Arizona pursuant to a state contract: Saguaro Correctional Center or Red Rock Correctional Center. Each plaintiff followed Native Hawaiian religious practices. Represented by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and private attorneys,…

On February 7, 2011, six Hawaii residents of Native Hawaiian ancestry held in for-profit prisons filed this state court class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated. Each plaintiff had been transferred to one of two private prisons in Arizona pursuant to a state contract: Saguaro Correctional Center or Red Rock Correctional Center. Each plaintiff followed Native Hawaiian religious practices. Represented by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and private attorneys, they brought this action against the Hawai'i state governor, the director of the Department of Public Safety, and CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant prisons prohibited them from exercising their constitutional and statutory right to practice their religion by limiting their access to sacred items, sacred spaces, spiritual advisors, daily worship practices, and observance of Makahiki ceremonies. The initial claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief under state law, as well as First and Fourteenth Amendment free exercise and equal protection rights, such that the defendants would provide a policy that would allow the plaintiffs the time and space necessary to follow the practices of their faith. Additionally, the plaintiffs requested compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 8, 2011, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. On March 23, they moved for a change of venue to the District Court of Arizona because of the location of the two private prisons. On May 27, Judge Barry M. Kurren denied the motion, holding its removal distinguished it from Bush v. Hawaii and Davis v. Hawaii. Section 28 U.S.C. 1441 governed once the case was removed and because the venue was not inconvenient, it remained in Hawaii. 2011 WL 2118276.

On November 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking class certification and requesting damages and classwide declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint also added claims that the defendants' conduct violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. On March 22, 2012, the plaintiffs moved to compel class certification. The defendants responded by both opposing the motion and filing for a protective order against discovery that they alleged was unduly burdensome. Discovery continued to be litigated throughout the case by both parties. The defendants also moved for a class determination no later than July, citing plaintiffs' delay in filing an action. On April 26, the plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction, requesting immediate replacement of certain personal, religious items.

On May 11, 2012, Judge Kurren granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel class certification and granted in part the defendants' protective order.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 22, 2012, with a supplemental complaint filed on behalf of one plaintiff who claimed additionally that he experienced unlawful retaliation in the form of segregation and removal from his job. On September 30, 2012, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi denied two plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction because the likelihood of irreparable harm was minimal in these individual cases. 903 F.Supp.2d 975.

In December 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as prescribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs failed to properly file grievances as to their alleged harms. Although the parties had vacated previously set settlement conferences, in March 2013, the plaintiffs requested and the court granted mandatory settlement conferences before Judge Kurren. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs moved for a protective order prohibiting retaliation against and intimidation of witnesses, which was denied at the first settlement conference without prejudice.

On April 11, 2013, Judge Kobayashi granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. The motion was granted as to: (1) the claims for regular meetings with a spiritual advisor made by certain plaintiffs; (2) the supplemental retaliation claims and claims for regular meetings with a spiritual advisor; and (3) and one plaintiff's claims for daily religious congregation and establishment of an outdoor altar. The judge denied the motion as to: (1) the state law claims; (2) claims for congregation with other practitioners on a daily basis, participation in certain Makahiki rituals and ceremonies, access to sacred items, and establishment of an outdoor altar; (3) one plaintiff's claims for participation in certain Makahiki rituals and ceremonies, regular meetings with a spiritual advisor, and access to sacred items; and (4) all of another plaintiff's religious claims. 2013 WL 1568425. Motions for partial reconsideration were denied. 2013 WL 2468356.

On July 31, 2013, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The following September, the court ordered a judgement on the pleadings and dismissed all claims against the governor as a defendant, removing him as a party. It also dismissed claims under count XXI in the second amended and supplemental complaints, which had alleged that restrictions on observance of the Makahiki caused by the transfer to an Arizona prison violated Hawaiian state statutes and the state constitution. The court held that providing a remedy for these claims would create an implausible and infeasible obligation on the state beyond what the state constitution required. The court also dismissed the defendants' request for sanctions. 2013 WL 5204982.

On October 31, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the claims filed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and on December 23, a counter-motion for summary judgment accompanied their response to the defendants' motion. The plaintiffs moved to remand state law claims, but the request was denied. Oral arguments were held on January 27, 2014 on the motions and counter-motions for summary judgment. On March 31, Judge Kobayashi granted in part and denied in part both the defendants' motion and the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the RLUIPA claims. The court also granted the counter-motion for summary judgment brought on the behalf of one plaintiff. That left (1) those claims seeking damages and retrospective equitable relief; (2) claims against Red Rock seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief; (3) one plaintiffs claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief regarding Saguaro; (4) another plaintiff's claims seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief regarding restricted custody at Saguaro; (5) the state law retaliation claim. 2014 WL 1321006. The defendants subsequently moved for reconsideration of their summary judgment motion, which Judge Kobayashi granted in part in June 2014. 2014 WL 2468348 (Amended 2014 WL 2716856). The court denied the plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint in May 2014.

On May 13, 2014, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of sovereign immunity and damages. On July 31, Judge Kobayashi granted summary judgment to the defendants in part. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on: (1) all § 1983 claims against the Director of Hawaii Department of Public Safety seeking retrospective or declaratory relief; (2) claims seeking damages or retrospective relief under the Hawaii State Constitution; and (3) state law retaliation claims seeking punitive damages. (4) The plaintiffs remaining claims under § 1983 and RLUIPA were limited to compensatory and nominal damages only. 2014 WL 3809499.

The plaintiffs also filed a second motion to certify the class and amended that motion in July 2014. On August 21, 2014, Judge Kobayashi granted a preliminary ruling on class certification on the record. The court certified a "prospective relief class" to refer to claims for prospective relief regarding daily, outdoor, group worship and access to sacred items. The court denied certification of a damages class. The court withheld a ruling on prospective relief subclasses. On September 30, 2014, Judge Kobayashi certified the prospective relief class and defined it as: a) all persons who were convicted of violating crimes under the laws of the State of Hawai'i and were residents of the state of Hawai'i; b) who are and/or will be confined to Saguaro Correctional Center ("Saguaro"); c) in the general population; and d) who have, according to Saguaro's established procedures, declared that the Native Hawaiian religion is their faith. The court also established a subclass of those individuals of the prospective relief class held in protective custody. A class seeking nominal damages and other retrospective relief was also established and defined as: a) all persons who were convicted of violating crimes under the laws of the State of Hawai'i and were residents of the state of Hawai'i; b) who are or were confined to Saguaro at any time within four years prior to February 7, 2011 until the resolution of this lawsuit; c) in the general population; and d) who have, according to Saguaro's established procedures, declared that the Native Hawaiian religion is their faith. From that class, the court established two classes: (1) the "SHIP Damages Subclass," defined as: a) all persons who were convicted of violating crimes under the laws of the State of Hawai'i and were residents of the state of Hawai'i; b) who are or were confined to Saguaro at any time within four years prior to February 7, 2011 until the resolution of this lawsuit; c) in the Special Housing Incentive Program (SHIP); and d) who have, according to Saguaro's established procedures, declared that the Native Hawaiian religion is their faith; and (2) the "Protective Custody" damages subclass, defined as a) all persons who were convicted of violating crimes under the laws of the State of Hawai'i and were residents of the state of Hawai'i; b) who are or were confined to Saguaro at any time within four years prior to February 7, 2011 until the resolution of this lawsuit; c) in protective custody; and d) who have, according to Saguaros's established procedures, declared that the Native Hawaiian religion is their faith. All remaining class claims were denied and remained only to be litigated on behalf of the named plaintiffs. 2014 WL 4956454.

On November 10, Judge Kobayashi entered an order addressing the remaining class claims from the court's earlier disposition on summary judgment and other claims regarding Makahiki and certain religious items. It held that those class claims still remained for plaintiffs to pursue. The plaintiffs were subsequently ordered to provide notice to members of the classes and subclasses.

On November 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for a protective order to prohibit retaliation against class participants and intimidation of witnesses. The defendants moved to recoup attorneys' fees and costs as to this motion, but the court denied it as premature on December 3. On December 24, the plaintiffs' second motion was denied. 2014 WL 7366685. The parties prepared for an estimated 10-day trial.

In May 2015, the parties requested and held a series of expedited settlement conferences before Judge Kurren that month. The parties first presented a settlement agreement on the record on June 5, 2015. Settlement talks continued through September and October between the parties. Although the case settled on October 16, 2015, negotiations continued through March 2016 when the defendants requested preliminary approval of the May 14 settlement terms (as expressed on the record on June 5) and a fairness hearing. The named plaintiffs subsequently opposed it, claiming a settlement had never been reached and the terms were part of the negotiation process. On September 7, 2016, Judge Kobayashi granted preliminary approval of the settlement and ordered that plaintiffs give notice by December 1 to object or opt out of the settlement. Though the plaintiffs claimed a settlement had never been reached and a number of members of the class filed letters of objection, the court reviewed discussions under contract law and held, under an analysis of Hanlon factors for fairness, that a settlement had been reached on April 11, 2017.

In the settlement, registered Native Hawaiian practitioners in the general population of the prisons and protective custody were permitted to retain in-cell one each of the requested religious items in a Ziploc bag along with other in-cell property, previously authorized sea salt, and written religious materials. Other materials would be available for check-out, including communal religious items stored in the chapel curing group programming, or purchase, including coconut oil and approved amulets. Those members of the class in administrative or disciplinary segregation would be allowed one each of standard religious items, except for coconut oil or bamboo nose flutes due to safety and security reasons. Saguaro agreed to publish an in-cell retention list and publish a communal items list in its chapel and add the lists to its policy. Donations were restricted; but replacement of communal use religious items could be requested so long as Saguaro agreed to work with the inmate population to identify a source or vendor for replacement. Practitioners were permitted outdoor worship classes six times per year for 1.5 hours each and to participate in two solstice and equinox and two Makahiki celebrations each year. They were also permitted weekly group gatherings for 1.5 hours in a secure location to be determined by the facility and access to a limited number of communal items stored in the chapel. Two additional Makahiki celebrations within a few days of the Makahiki celebrations were also permitted on a limited basis, with the same food offerings provided. Upon request and subject to availability, registered practitioners could request to meet with a spiritual advisor through the cell door for 15–20 minutes for non-disruptive ministry, prayers, or chants. Ceremonial food offering could be administered by the advisor through the cell door food slot and an inmate could receive an in-cell meal tray provided to GP inmates participating in Makahiki, given written advance request. Other SHIP inmates would be allowed to meet with the spiritual advisor in the dayroom for similar activities upon request and subject to availability for the Makahiki. However, participation in programming would be subject to restrictions for safety and security risks based on an individualized assessment of the inmate’s history and behavior.

All plaintiffs, both individual and class, waived and released all claims for damages. Instead, the defendant CoreCivic agreed to pay $70,000 to the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation for costs incurred. Except for those expressly provided in the order, the parties bore their own attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties agreed that implementation and religious items would be made available within 60 days of the agreement. They also agreed to forgo a consent decree and court-ordered monitoring. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

An amended settlement order was submitted May 22, 2017 to reflect CoreCivic's name change. 2017 WL 2234175. The case was dismissed with prejudice and is now closed.

Summary Authors

Chelsea Rinnig (7/4/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4880555/parties/davis-v-abercrombie/


Judge(s)

Kobayashi, Leslie Emi (Hawaii)

Kurren, Barry M. (Hawaii)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Haia, Moses K.N. III (Hawaii)

Kawahito, James Kazou (California)

Ley, Leina'ala L (Hawaii)

Luke, Howard K.K. (Hawaii)

Manley, Sharla Ann (Hawaii)

Sprenger, Andrew B (Hawaii)

Westrick, Shawn (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Gluck, Daniel M (Hawaii)

Judge(s)

Kobayashi, Leslie Emi (Hawaii)

Kurren, Barry M. (Hawaii)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Haia, Moses K.N. III (Hawaii)

Kawahito, James Kazou (California)

Ley, Leina'ala L (Hawaii)

Luke, Howard K.K. (Hawaii)

Manley, Sharla Ann (Hawaii)

Sprenger, Andrew B (Hawaii)

Westrick, Shawn (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Gluck, Daniel M (Hawaii)

Guzman, Jamie (Arizona)

Lewis, David C. (Arizona)

Love, Rachel (Arizona)

Luria, April (Hawaii)

Roeca, Jodie D. (Hawaii)

Struck, Daniel Patrick (Arizona)

Wieneke, Kathleen L (Arizona)

Other Attorney(s)

Bickerton, James J (Hawaii)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Kopper, David Keith K (Hawaii)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

March 8, 2011 Docket
1

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages

Feb. 7, 2011 Complaint
1

Defendants' Notice of Removal

March 8, 2011 Notice Letter
28

Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue

2011 WL 2118276

May 27, 2011 Order/Opinion
145

Second Amended Complaint

Davis vs. Abercrombie

Aug. 22, 2012 Complaint
146

Supplemental Complaint for Damages and for Classwide Declarator and Injunctive Relief

Aug. 22, 2012 Complaint
182

Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction

903 F.Supp.2d 975

Sept. 30, 2012 Order/Opinion
390

Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

2013 WL 5204982

Sept. 13, 2013 Order/Opinion
544

Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

2014 WL 2716856

June 13, 2014 Order/Opinion
596

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Sovereign Immunity/Damages

2014 WL 3809499

July 31, 2014 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4880555/davis-v-abercrombie/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

Description not available

1 Declaration of April Luria

View on PACER

2 Exhibit A

View on PACER

3 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

4 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

March 8, 2011 PACER
2

Filing Fee Received

March 8, 2011 PACER
3

Set Rule 16 Scheduling Conference

1 MEMO To All Counsel re: Corporate Disclosure Statements

View on PACER

March 8, 2011 PACER
4

Corporate Disclosure Statement

March 8, 2011 PACER
5

Answer to Complaint

1 Demand for Jury Trial

View on PACER

2 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

March 9, 2011 PACER
6

Transmittal of Documents

1 First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii's: Table of Contents;

View on PACER

2 Civil Information Sheet;

View on PACER

3 Complaint;

View on PACER

4 Governor Abercrombie,

View on PACER

5 Jodie Maesaka-Hirata,

View on PACER

6 David M. Louie,

View on PACER

7 Jodie Maesaka-Hirata, in her official capacity as Interim Director,

View on PACER

8 Governer Neil Abercrombie,

View on PACER

9 Corrections Corporation of America;

View on PACER

10 Reassignment of Case;

View on PACER

11 Notice of Filing Notice of Removal (part 1of2),

View on PACER

12 Notice of Filing Notice of Removal (part 2of2)

View on PACER

March 10, 2011 PACER
7

Motion to Change Venue

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

March 23, 2011 PACER
8

Notice of Hearing on Motion

March 23, 2011 PACER
9

Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R)

March 23, 2011 PACER
10

Description not available

March 24, 2011 PACER
11

Scheduling Conference Statement

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

March 28, 2011 PACER
12

Report of Planning Meeting

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

March 28, 2011 PACER
13

Notice of Hearing on Motion

March 29, 2011 PACER
14

Set Hearings

March 29, 2011 PACER
15

Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R)

April 4, 2011 PACER
16

Set Hearings

April 4, 2011 PACER
17

Certificate of Service

April 8, 2011 PACER
18

Certificate of Service

April 8, 2011 PACER
19

Certificate of Service

April 8, 2011 PACER
20

Certificate of Service

April 8, 2011 PACER
21

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 8

View on PACER

10 Declaration of Andrew B. Sprenger

View on PACER

11 Certificate of Word Count

View on PACER

12 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 19, 2011 PACER

Advisory Entry

April 20, 2011 PACER
22

Response in Support of Motion

1 Declaration of April Luria

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Affidavit of Todd Thomas

View on PACER

4 Affidavit of Bruno Stolce

View on PACER

5 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 26, 2011 PACER
23

Certificate of Service

April 28, 2011 PACER
24

Initial Disclosure

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 28, 2011 PACER
25

Initial Disclosure

April 29, 2011 PACER
26

Scheduling Conference Statement

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 3, 2011 PACER
27

Motion Hearing

May 10, 2011 PACER
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 7 - Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 5/27/11. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

May 27, 2011 RECAP
29

Certificate of Service

June 1, 2011 PACER
30

Scheduling Conference

June 22, 2011 PACER
31

Scheduling Order

June 24, 2011 PACER
32

Certificate of Service

June 27, 2011 PACER
33

Certificate of Service

June 27, 2011 PACER
34

Certificate of Service

June 27, 2011 PACER
35

Certificate of Service

July 5, 2011 PACER
36

Motion for Leave to File

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Andrew B. Sprenger

View on PACER

3 Exhibit A

View on PACER

4 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

Sept. 14, 2011 PACER
37

Notice of Hearing on Motion

Sept. 21, 2011 PACER
38

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

Sept. 29, 2011 PACER
39

Reply

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

Oct. 5, 2011 PACER
40

Order on Motion for Leave to File

Oct. 20, 2011 PACER
41

Order - Written Order Following Oral Order on Motion

Nov. 4, 2011 PACER
42

Amended Complaint

1 Summons and Proof of Service

View on PACER

Nov. 14, 2011 PACER
43

Summons Issued

Nov. 15, 2011 PACER
44

Certificate of Service

Nov. 22, 2011 PACER
45

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 28, 2011 PACER
46

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 28, 2011 PACER
47

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 28, 2011 PACER
48

Summons Returned Executed

Nov. 28, 2011 PACER
49

Waiver of Service Executed

Dec. 2, 2011 PACER
50

Status Conference

Dec. 2, 2011 PACER
51

Answer to Amended Complaint

1 Jury Demand

View on PACER

2 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

Dec. 5, 2011 PACER
52

Scheduling Order

Dec. 6, 2011 PACER
53

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
54

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
55

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
56

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
57

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
58

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
59

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
60

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
61

Certificate of Service

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER

Advisory Entry

Jan. 4, 2012 PACER
62

Certificate of Service

Feb. 2, 2012 PACER
63

Certificate of Service

Feb. 2, 2012 PACER
64

Certificate of Service

Feb. 2, 2012 PACER
65

Certificate of Service

Feb. 2, 2012 PACER
66

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Sharla Manley

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 8

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 9

View on PACER

12 Exhibit 10

View on PACER

13 Exhibit 11

View on PACER

14 Exhibit 12

View on PACER

15 Exhibit 13

View on PACER

16 Certificate of Conferring in Good Faith

View on PACER

17 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

March 22, 2012 PACER
67

Notice of Hearing on Motion

March 23, 2012 PACER
68

Terminate Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R)

March 23, 2012 PACER
69

Notice of Hearing on Motion

March 28, 2012 PACER
70

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

1 Declaration Warden Thomas

View on PACER

2 Declaration Warden Griego

View on PACER

3 Declaration April Luria

View on PACER

4 Exhibit A

View on PACER

5 Exhibit B

View on PACER

6 Exhibit B-1

View on PACER

7 Exhibit C

View on PACER

8 Exhibit D

View on PACER

9 Exhibit E

View on PACER

10 Exhibit F

View on PACER

11 Declaration Kimoto

View on PACER

12 Declaration Valenzuela

View on PACER

13 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 10, 2012 PACER
71

Reply

1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Sharla Manley

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 14

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 15

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 16

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 17

View on PACER

6 Certificate of Word Count

View on PACER

7 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 17, 2012 PACER
72

Motion to Compel

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Sharla Manley

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 8

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 9

View on PACER

12 Exhibit 10

View on PACER

13 Exhibit 11

View on PACER

14 Exhibit 12

View on PACER

15 Exhibit 13

View on PACER

16 Exhibit 14

View on PACER

17 Exhibit 15

View on PACER

18 Exhibit 16

View on PACER

19 Certificate of Conferring in Good Faith

View on PACER

20 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 24, 2012 PACER
73

Notice of Hearing on Motion

April 26, 2012 PACER
74

Declaration

1 Declaration Thomas

View on PACER

2 Declaration Griego

View on PACER

3 Declaration Kimoto

View on PACER

4 Declaration Valenzuela

View on PACER

5 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 26, 2012 PACER
75

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Richard Kapela Davis

View on PACER

3 Declaration of James Kane III

View on PACER

4 Declaration of Ty Preston Kawika Tengan

View on PACER

5 Declaration of Counsel

View on PACER

6 Exhibit A

View on PACER

7 Exhibit B

View on PACER

8 Exhibit C

View on PACER

9 Exhibit D

View on PACER

10 Certificate of Word Count

View on PACER

11 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 26, 2012 PACER

Advisory Entry

April 27, 2012 PACER
76

Notice of Hearing on Motion

April 30, 2012 PACER
77

Motion to Certify Class

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

April 30, 2012 PACER
78

Notice of Hearing on Motion

April 30, 2012 PACER
79

Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings (inc F&R)

April 30, 2012 PACER
80

Order on Motion to Compel

May 1, 2012 PACER
81

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

1 Declaration of April Luria

View on PACER

2 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 8, 2012 PACER
82

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 9, 2012 PACER
83

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

May 9, 2012 PACER
84

Motion to Shorten Time to hear Motion

1 Declaration of Andrew B. Sprenger

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 10, 2012 PACER
85

Order - Written Order Following Oral Order on Motion

May 11, 2012 PACER
86

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

1 Table of Contents & Authorities

View on PACER

2 Memorandum

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

10 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 14, 2012 PACER
87

Order on Motion to Shorten time to hear Motion

May 16, 2012 PACER
88

Reply

1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Sharla Manley

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 17

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 18

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 19

View on PACER

5 Certificate of Word Count

View on PACER

6 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 21, 2012 PACER
89

Motion for Reconsideration

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

May 25, 2012 PACER
90

Link

May 25, 2012 PACER
91

Link

May 29, 2012 PACER
92

Link

May 29, 2012 PACER
93

Motion Hearing

May 31, 2012 PACER
94

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

June 8, 2012 PACER
95

Motion for Leave to File

1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Andrew B. Sprenger

View on PACER

3 Exhibit A part 1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit A part 2

View on PACER

5 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

June 15, 2012 PACER
96

Initial Disclosure

1 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

June 18, 2012 PACER
97

Notice of Hearing on Motion

June 19, 2012 PACER

State / Territory: Hawaii

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Solitary confinement

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 7, 2011

Closing Date: 2017

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Hawaiian residents of Native ancestry and religion, held in for-profit prisons in Arizona.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Hawaii Department of Public Safety, State

CoreCivic (Eloy), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)

State law

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Free Exercise Clause

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Private Settlement Agreement

Amount Defendant Pays: 70,000

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Administrative segregation

Conditions of confinement

Disciplinary segregation

Language access/needs

Religious programs / policies

Solitary confinement/Supermax (conditions or process)

Discrimination-basis:

Religion discrimination

Race:

Asian/Pacific Islander

Type of Facility:

Non-government for profit