The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff William Ramsey ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, asserting that Defendants Roy Reeber, Albert Tufono, and Gail Muranaka (collectively, "Individual Defendants"), the Hawaii Paroling Authority (the "HPA"), and the State of Hawaii (the "State") (collectively together, "Defendants"), violated his due process and equal protection rights when the HPA required him to participate in the Sex Offender Treatment Program ("SOTP") after Plaintiff had already served his sentence for Sex Assault in the Third Degree. Defendants subsequently removed the action to this court.
Currently before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, in which they argue that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the following, the court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.
As alleged in the Complaint, on August 18, 1994, Plaintiff was convicted of Sex Assault in the Third Degree, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, after a jury trial. Compl. ¶ 12. On October 28, 1994, Plaintiff was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Id. ¶ 13. The Complaint asserts that because Plaintiff could be sentenced up to a maximum of five years only, the State could not order Plaintiff to complete any classes related to this conviction after he completed his five-year sentence. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.
Although Plaintiff completed his five-year sentence on August 17, 1999, Plaintiff remained in prison to serve a ten-year sentence for a burglary conviction. Id. ¶¶ 14, 17. In 2010, Plaintiff appeared before the HPA for a parole hearing, where HPA members Reeber and Muranaka were present. Id. ¶ 22. At the hearing, the HPA allegedly agreed that the State could not order Plaintiff to participate in the SOTP because he had already "maxed out" on his sentence. Id.
¶ 24. Nonetheless, the Order Granting Parole, which Plaintiff signed, states that Plaintiff must complete the SOTP. Id. ¶ 25.
Plaintiff asserts that the HPA's reversal that Plaintiff must complete the SOTP violates his procedural and substantive due process rights, and equal protection rights.
On October 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii asserting claims against Defendants titled (1) Equal Protection; (2) Injunction; and (3) Due Process. On November 16, 2011, Defendants removed the action to this court.
On November 18, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on February 3, 2012, and Defendants filed their Reply on February 10, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court ...