Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court — No. SCWC-14-0000914
No. SCWC-14-0000914, Thursday, December 7, 2017, 10 a.m.
MUKADIN GORDON, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JODIE F. MAESAKA-HIRATA; PETRA CHO; and STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Eric A. Seitz, Della A. Belatti, Sarah Devine, and Bronson Avila
Attorneys for Respondent:
Caron M. Inagaki and Kendall J. Moser, Deputy Attorneys General
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/13/17.
COURT: MER, C.J., PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.
Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Mukadin Gordon (Gordon) has applied for a writ of certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals’(ICA) July 6, 2017 Judgment on Appeal filed pursuant to its May 30, 2017 Memorandum Opinion. The ICA affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) in favor of Respondents/Defendants-Appellees Jodie F. Maesaka-Hirata (Maesaka-Hirata), Petra Cho (Cho), and State of Hawai i (the State) (collectively, “the Defendants”).
This case arises from a civil action wherein Gordon asserted that after he was arrested, the Defendants erroneously classified him as a maximum security pretrial detainee and improperly held him in maximum security custody for about nine months. Gordon’s complaint alleged that the Defendants violated his constitutional right to due process because the conditions of his pretrial confinement constituted unlawful pretrial punishment, and that he was entitled to relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleged several state law tort claims.
Following a jury-waived trial, the circuit court ruled in favor of the Defendants. The ICA affirmed.
Gordon presents three questions for review on certiorari: (1) whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the conditions of his pretrial confinement did not constitute unlawful pretrial punishment; (2) whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the Defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in holding him in maximum security custody; and (3) whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that Cho was entitled to qualified immunity from his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and state law tort claims.