United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MAUI LOA, individually as a native Hawaiian Indian Chief, Plaintiff,
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
Michael Seabright, Chief United States District Judge
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”).
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
court decides the motions without a hearing pursuant to Local