Hall v. City and County of Honolulu

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBIN HALL, No. 25-3596 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:21-cv-00248-LEK-KJM v. MEMORANDUM* CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; JOHN LEO CASTILLO; DEBRA MAIOHO-POHINA; CHRISTOPHER KOANUI,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LEONARD LETOTO,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 25, 2026 Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: N.R. SMITH, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Robin Hall appeals the dismissal of her claims against the City and County

of Honolulu (“Honolulu”) and the grant of summary judgment to Honolulu Police

Department officers Christopher Koanui, John Castillo, and Debra Maioho-Pohina

(collectively, the “Officers”). Hall brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state

law arising from the Officers’ response to an incident involving Hall and her

former employer, Leonard Letoto. We review de novo grants of summary

judgment, Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2006),

and dismissals for failure to state a claim, Park v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 952

F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2020). We may affirm on any ground supported by the

record. Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Port of Tacoma, 104 F.4th 95, 103 (9th Cir.

2024). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court properly granted summary judgment to Officer

Koanui on Hall’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Assuming without deciding

that Officer Koanui’s statements to Hall constituted adverse actions, there is no

triable issue of fact as to whether there was a substantial causal relationship

between Officer Koanui’s statements and Hall’s attempts to make a criminal

complaint against Letoto. See Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 398–99 (2019)

(retaliation claim requires “but-for” causation, “meaning that the adverse action

against the plaintiff would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive”

(citation omitted)); Hill v. City of Fountain Valley, 70 F.4th 507, 518–19 (9th Cir.

2 25-3596 2023) (affirming grant of summary judgment to officers because no evidence

suggested that officers would have acted differently even without plaintiff’s

protected activity). The undisputed record shows that Officer Koanui suggested

that Hall retaining Letoto’s business phone was “borderline extortion” and could

constitute theft while Hall possessed both the phone and the paycheck. Officer

Koanui’s statements addressed that conduct. Because Officer Koanui had reason to

address Hall’s retention of the phone regardless of whether she sought to press

charges against Letoto, her protected activity was not a but-for cause of Officer

Koanui’s statements. See Nieves, 587 U.S. at 398 (“It is not enough to show that an

official acted with a retaliatory motive and that the plaintiff was injured—the

motive must cause the injury.”).

2. The district court properly granted summary judgment to Officer

Koanui on Hall’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim because there is

no triable issue of fact as to whether a rational basis existed to treat Hall’s

complaint differently than Letoto’s. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.

562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (establishing elements of a class-of-one claim). We

look to “whether there is a rational basis for the distinction, rather than the

underlying government action.” Gerhart v. Lake Cnty., 637 F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th

Cir. 2011). The undisputed differences in the two complaints’ investigative posture

supply that basis. Letoto’s theft allegation was based in part on conduct that

3 25-3596 Officer Koanui directly observed. By contrast, Hall’s assault allegation depended

on surveillance video that was not viewable at the scene, and Hall fainted before

the Officers could confirm how Hall wanted to proceed. Those undisputed

distinctions furnish a non-arbitrary basis for documenting Letoto’s complaint while

deferring Hall’s.

3. Because Hall’s underlying constitutional claims fail, so do her

conspiracy claims against the Officers. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896,

935 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (conspiracy requires “an underlying constitutional

violation”). To the extent that Hall presses a state-law civil conspiracy claim, she

ties it to the same asserted constitutional violations discussed here, so it fails for

lack of any underlying unlawful act. See Weinberg v. Mauch, 890 P.2d 277, 286

(Haw. 1995).

4. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hall’s claims against

Honolulu because a municipality cannot be held liable under Monell v. Department

of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), absent an underlying constitutional injury.

See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

4 25-3596