The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gillmor Senior United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF HAWAII OFFICIAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 23) AND STATE OF HAWAII DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 25)
Plaintiff George K. Young, Jr. sues County and State Officials alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 in the denial of his application for a license to carry a weapon in public, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute § 134-9. Plaintiff asserts that the enforcement of Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 134-6 and 134-9 violate the rights guaranteed him by Article I of the United States Constitution, and by the Second, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. To remedy the alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks damages, an order enjoining the enforcement of Chapter 134 of Hawaii Revised Statutes, and a three-year permit for carrying a weapon in public.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint.
Plaintiff's claims against the State and State Officials are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiff's claims against the County and County Officials fail because Plaintiff has not alleged a Constitutional violation.
The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.
On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (Doc. 1.)
On August 10, 2012, the County Official Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 23.) The County of Hawaii and Hilo County Police Department were never served.
On August 16, 2012, the State of Hawaii Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 25.)
On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 29.)
On October 1, 2012, the County of Hawaii Officials Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. 33.)
On October 1, 2012, the State of Hawaii Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. 34.)
The Court elected to decide the matter without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d).
A. Factual Allegations Set Forth In The Complaint
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff George K. Young, Jr.'s rights under the United States Constitution by denying his applications for a license to carry a firearm, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute ("HRS") § 134-9. Plaintiff also alleges that HRS § 134-6, which was repealed in 2006, is unconstitutional.
B. Legal Allegations Set Forth In The Complaint
The Complaint sets out claims asserting that HRS §§ 134-6 and 134-9 ("Hawaii's Firearm Carrying Laws") violate Plaintiff's rights guaranteed by Article I of the United States Constitution, and by the Second, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiff's primary contention involves HRS § 134-9, Hawaii's License to Carry Law. The law conditions the ability to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition in public. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.
The other challenged provision, HRS § 134-6, was repealed in 2006 and replaced by HRS §§ 134-21 through 134-27. See Act 66, § 6, of the 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws; State v. Ancheta, 220 P.3d 1052 (Haw.Ct.App. 2009)(noting the similarity between HRS § 134-6 and the replacement statutes). The statutes at issue regulate the transportation of weapons outside of a person's private property.
People who hold a License to Carry, pursuant to HRS § 134-9, are exempt from the provisions.
Counts One through Five allege the following claims against all Defendants:
COUNT ONE - "(42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986) Violation of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Cls. 1: 'No State shall . . . pass . . . any Bill of Attainder. . .'"
COUNT TWO - "(42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986) Violation of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: 'No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the Obligations of Contract . . .'"
COUNT THREE - "Violation of U.S. Constitution, Amendment II" COUNT FOUR - "Violation of U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX" COUNT FIVE - "Violation of U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV '. . .No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States . . . '"
The Complaint also alleges a cause of action under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Complaint at pg. 6.) Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction preventing the enforcement of HRS Chapter 134, damages, and punitive damages. He also requests that he be immediately issued a permit to carry an unconcealed or concealed weapon for three years.
C. Plaintiff's Previous Cases
Plaintiff has previously filed two similar Complaints in the Federal District of Hawaii. In the first case, Young v. Hawaii, 548 F.Supp.2d 1151 (D. Haw. 2008)("Young I"), Plaintiff sued State and County Officials based on the denial of his application to carry a weapon in public. The factual and legal basis are nearly identical to the case before the Court. On March 12, 2008, the District Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. The Court held that sovereign immunity barred suit against the State and State officials. As to the County, the Court held that Plaintiff lacked standing to sue for a Second Amendment violation, reflecting the state of the law at the time of the decision.
In the second case, Young v Hawaii, No. 08-00540, 73 Fed.R. Serv.3d 1635 (D. Haw. Jul. 2, 2009)("Young II"), Plaintiff alleged the same violations as in Young I after he was again denied a permit after reapplying. Three differences existed between Young I and Young II. First, in Young II, Plaintiff brought causes of action against County Officials in their individual capacities, as well as official capacities. Second, after Young I, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Heller v. District of Columbia, 540 U.S. 570 (2008), holding that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution conferred a limited right to individuals to keep and bear arms. Third, at the time of the District Court's Order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment applied to the states, not just to the federal government. Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), vacated, 611.F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2010)(remanding back to panel after McDonald v. City of Chicago), rehearing en banc, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012). While Heller and King did confer standing on Plaintiff to challenge an alleged infringement of his Second Amendment right, Plaintiff was estopped from bringing the claims a second time due to the preclusive effect of Young I.
Defendants move to dismiss the alleged causes of action in Counts I through V, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where it fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must presume all allegations of material fact to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. Id. at 699. The Court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or allegations contradicting the exhibits attached to the complaint. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, the United States Supreme Court addressed the pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the anti-trust context. 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The Supreme Court stated that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," and that "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555.
Most recently, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified that the principles announced in Twombly are applicable in all civil cases. 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Court stated that "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The complaint "must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively" and must "plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation." AE ex rel Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012)(internal quotations omitted).
A plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint, unless it could not be saved by any amendment. Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2009)(internal quotations omitted). A court may deny leave to amend a complaint if a plaintiff could not possibly cure the deficiency by alleging "other facts consistent with the challenged pleading." Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 95 (Oct. 03 2011). A court may also deny leave to amend if it would be futile, such as when a claim will inevitably be defeated on summary judgment. Johnson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 834 F.2d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff's allegations arise from being denied a permit to carry a firearm, pursuant to HRS § 134-9. County Officials and all State Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's causes of action. State Defendants claim that Plaintiff's suit against them is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. County Official Defendants claim that Plaintiff lacks standing and that the Complaint does not allege a United States Constitutional violation. The County of Hawaii and Hilo County Police Department were not served and have not entered an appearance in the action.
I. PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE OF HAWAII DEFENDANTS ARE BARRED BY ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
Plaintiff sues the State of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie in his official capacity as the Governor of Hawaii, and David M. Louie in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Hawaii.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity applies when civil rights claims are brought against the State of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Congress did not abrogate the States' sovereign immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's claims against the State of Hawaii and Defendants Abercrombie and Louie under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 for violation of the prohibition on Bills of Attainders in the United States Constitution, the Contract Clause, and the Second, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments are barred by Eleventh Amendment Immunity.
A. The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is set out in the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
U.S. Const. amend. XI. The United States Supreme Court has held that Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to suits against a State or its agencies by citizens of that same State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
Sovereign immunity generally bars the federal courts from entertaining suits brought against a State or its agencies, unless a State waives immunity or Congress abrogates immunity pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
L.A. Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1992); Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 1173 (2006).
Sovereign immunity also bars federal statutory and constitutional claims for money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities, absent a waiver or abrogation of immunity. See Dittman v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1999). State officials may be subject to suit for prospective injunctive relief under the doctrine established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
B. Hawaii Has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity
In order to waive sovereign immunity, a State's consent must be expressed unequivocally. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984). The State of Hawaii has not waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court for civil rights actions. See Linville v. State of Hawaii, 874 F.Supp. 1095, 1103 (D.Haw. 1994). Here, the State of Hawaii Defendants have invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
C. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 Do Not Abrogate Sovereign Immunity
Congress has the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the States, pursuant to Section 5 of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Congress must do so by enacting a statute which "explicitly and by clear language indicate[s] on its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States." Quern v. Jordon, 440 U.S. 332, 332 (1979); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000)(Congress may abrogate the States' ...