Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loa v. Congressional Rules and Regulation Committee Governing Native American Funding

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

August 30, 2017

MAUI LOA, individually as a native Hawaiian Indian Chief, Plaintiff,
v.
Congressional Rules and Regulation Committee Governing Native American funding; AG Jeff Sessions; Florence T. Nakakuni; Kirk Caldwell; Estate of Dan Inouye; Estate of Hiram Fong; Mike Friedel; Duane Pang, Defendants.

          ORDER: (1) GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, ECF NO. 47; (2) GRANTING CITY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, ECF NO. 51; AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, ECF NO. 53

          J. Michael Seabright, Chief United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pro se Plaintiff Maui Loa (“Maui Loa” or “Plaintiff”), who identifies himself as a native Hawaiian Indian Chief, brings his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ECF No. 44, against the following federal defendants and City and County of Honolulu defendants: Congressional Rules and Regulation Committee Governing Native American funding (“NAF Committee”), United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions (“Sessions”), former United States Attorney Florence T. Nakakuni (“Nakakuni”), Estate of former United States Senator Dan Inouye (“Inouye”), and Estate of former United States Senator Hiriam Fong (“Fong”) (collectively, “Federal Defendants”); and against Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell (“Caldwell”), Mike Friedel (“Friedel”), Duane Pang (“Pang”) (collectively, “City Defendants”).

         Currently before the court are three motions: (1) Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 47; (2) City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 51; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue, ECF No. 53. For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS both Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         The parties are familiar with the facts of the case because the court has twice previously dismissed this action, both times with leave to amend. See Loa v. Lynch (“Loa I”), 2016 WL 7155733 (D. Haw. Dec. 7, 2016), ECF No. 27; Loa v. Soon (“Loa II”), Civ. No. 16-00446 (D. Haw. May 31, 2017), ECF No. 43. Consequently, the court only briefly recites the factual background here.[1]

         Although Plaintiff does not specifically address his personal injury in the SAC, Plaintiff alleged in previous complaints that the local government foreclosed on three plots of Plaintiff's land on the north shore of Oahu in violation of Plaintiff's due process rights, and the federal government failed to stop them. Original Compl. at 7-9, ECF No. 1; First Am. Compl. at 3-5, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff now makes new -- and not specific -- factual allegations against new defendants.

         As to the Federal Defendants, Plaintiff asserts three claims. First, Plaintiff claims that the NAF Committee, Inouye, and Fong violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantee of due process when they “changed native Hawaiian into Native Hawaiian” and thus took away all of Plaintiff's rights and property. SAC at 4-5. Second, Plaintiff claims that Fong and Inouye violated various criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346, by failing to “fix” the “Native Hawaiian” designation. SAC at 6-7. And third, Plaintiff claims that he notified Sessions and Nakakuni that violations of federal law were occurring, and they failed to investigate or prosecute said violations. SAC at 7-9.

         As to the City Defendants, Plaintiff claims that “[f]alse statements made by [City Defendants], on the record, prove factually that when taking Maui Loa's real property, they denied Maui Loa a fair trial.” SAC at 9-10.

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on June 19, 2017. ECF No. 44. Federal Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 3, 2017. ECF No. 47. On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Opposition, and on August 7, 2017, Federal Defendants filed their Reply. ECF Nos. 56, 60. City Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 11, 2017. ECF No. 51. On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Opposition, and on July 31, 2017, City Defendants filed their Reply. ECF Nos. 55, 58. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Change Venue on July 17, 2017. Federal Defendants and City Defendants filed their respective Oppositions on July 31, 2017. ECF Nos. 57, 59. Plaintiff has not filed a Reply.

         The court decides the motions without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d).

         III. STAND ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.