Nakaula, Jr. v. Wagatsuma
This text of 516 P.3d 71 (Nakaula, Jr. v. Wagatsuma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 24-AUG-2022 07:57 AM Dkt. 75 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
EDWARD K. NAKAULA, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEAL WAGATSUMA, WARDEN, KAUA‘I COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 15-1-0079)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Edward K.
Nakaula, Jr. (Nakaula) appeals from the Circuit Court of the
Fifth Circuit's (1) November 7, 2017 Order of Dismissal Pursuant
to Rule 28 of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of
Hawai‘i (Order of Dismissal) and (2) April 18, 2018 Judgment of
Dismissal as to All Claims and All Parties (Judgment). 1
1 The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve this
appeal as follows and affirm.
In the Order of Dismissal, the circuit court dismissed
Nakaula's June 5, 2015 Complaint (Complaint) for want of
service. Specifically, Nakaula did not serve the Complaint on
Defendant-Appellee Neal Wagatsuma, Warden, Kaua‘i Community
Correctional Center, State of Hawai‘i (Wagatsuma), pursuant to
the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai‘i (RCCH)
Rule 28.
RCCH Rule 28 provides as follows:
A diligent effort to effect service shall be made in all actions. An action or claim may be dismissed sua sponte with written notice to the parties if no service is made within 6 months after the action or claim has been filed. Such dismissal may be set aside and the action or claim reinstated by order of the court for good cause shown upon motion duly filed not later than ten (10) days from the date of the order of dismissal.
Nothing in the record demonstrates that the circuit court
improperly entered the Order of Dismissal.
Moreover, the Order of Dismissal explicitly stated,
"[t]his dismissal may be set aside and the pleading or claim may
be reinstated by order of the court for good cause shown upon
motion duly filed not later than ten (10) days from the date of
this order of dismissal." Nakaula did not file a motion to set
aside the dismissal to have his pleading reinstated.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Having raised no other discernable arguments on appeal
relevant to the order and judgment, Nakaula presents no basis
for this court to hold that the circuit court erred in
dismissing his Complaint. 2
For these reasons, we affirm the circuit court's
(1) November 7, 2017 Order of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 28 of
the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai‘i and
(2) April 18, 2018 Judgment of Dismissal as to All Claims and
All Parties.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 24, 2022.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Edward K. Nakaula, Jr., Self-represented /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge
Caron M. Inagaki, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Deputy Attorney General, Associate Judge for Defendant-Appellee.
2 Nakaula's opening brief does not meet the requirements of Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). Pursuant to HRAP Rule 1(d), "[a]ttorneys and pro se parties are deemed to be aware of, and are expected to comply with, all of the provisions of these rules." However, we address Nakaula's arguments as related to the order and judgment from which he appeals "to the extent they can reasonably be discerned" to promote equal access to justice for pro se litigants. Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai‘i 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 446 (App. 2011).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
516 P.3d 71, 151 Haw. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nakaula-jr-v-wagatsuma-hawapp-2022.