Kealoha v. Espinda et al

Kealoha v. Espinda et al

Case Number:	1:2020cv00309
Filed:	December 1, 2020
Court:	US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Office:	Hawaii Office
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 7, 2021	Filing 42 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 33 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 6/7/2021. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANT ED in part and DENIED in part as follows. Defendants have established that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the claims arising out of the January 28, 2019 incident. Accordingly, Defendant s' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the excessive force and retaliation claims against ACOs Utu and Arcalas, and those Defendants are terminated from the suit. Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as to claims arising out of the March 28, 2019 and April 18, 2019 incidents. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the retaliation c laim against Shelley Harrington and the excessive force claim against ACO Kaninau. (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Kristopher Kealoha served by First Class Mail on June 8, 2021 to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
December 1, 2020	Filing 12 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING SERVICE - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 12/1/2020. (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 7, 2021

Filing 42 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 33 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 6/7/2021. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANT ED in part and DENIED in part as follows. Defendants have established that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the claims arising out of the January 28, 2019 incident. Accordingly, Defendant s' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the excessive force and retaliation claims against ACOs Utu and Arcalas, and those Defendants are terminated from the suit. Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as to claims arising out of the March 28, 2019 and April 18, 2019 incidents. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the retaliation c laim against Shelley Harrington and the excessive force claim against ACO Kaninau. (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Kristopher Kealoha served by First Class Mail on June 8, 2021 to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

December 1, 2020

Filing 12 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND DIRECTING SERVICE - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 12/1/2020. (jo)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kealoha v. Espinda et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?