Sisco v. State

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000500
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 31-OCT-2025 08:43 AM Dkt. 68 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

PETER SISCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAIʻI, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Peter Sisco appeals from the

Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's June 19, 2024 "Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order" (June 19, 2024

Order) and June 28, 2024 Final Judgment. 1 (Formatting altered.)

1 The Honorable Michelle L. Drewyer presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Sisco contends the circuit court erred when

it concluded he had not pled sufficient facts in his First

Amended Complaint to assert any of the seven counts he raised

against Defendant-Appellee the Department of Land and Natural

Resources (DLNR).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and vacate and remand.

Sisco filed a complaint on March 31, 2023, and a First

Amended Complaint on January 26, 2024. In his First Amended

Complaint, Sisco asserted the following seven counts:

Count 1: "Violation of [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 7-1" (2009);

Count 2: "Violation of HRS Chapter 205A" (2017);

Count 3: "Violation of Common Law Customs";

Count 4: "Violation of Common Law/Tort - Nuisance";

Count 5: "Violation of Easement by Public Trust";

Count 6: "Violation of HRS Chapter 115" (2012); and

Count 7: "Violation of HRS § 91-7" (2012 & Supp. 2014).

(Formatting altered.) He alleged the following facts to support

all seven counts:

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8. MR. SISCO, a fisherman, is a long-time resident of the Island of Maui.

9. MR. SISCO has been fishing and enjoying the natural beauty (including sunsets) and leisure at [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach (aka Little Beach) on Maui since 1987.

10. On or about January 5, 2020, the DLNR put up a gate to the access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach.

11. The DLNR instituted a rule/policy unreasonably limiting the access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach and on Saturday and Sundays closes the gate at 4.p.m. Upon information and belief, the DLNR violated the statutory rulemaking procedures in making this new closure rule.

12. Residents and tourists can still access the beach, yet the access around the gate is hazardous and creates serious risk of injury.

13. MR. SISCO does not risk life and limb by trying to go around the gate, which would be in violation of the DLNR's rule/law, and is instead kept out of [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach after 4 p.m. on the weekends preventing him from fishing and enjoying the sunset and natural beauty and leisure of [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach after 4 p.m.

14. Due to the lack of reasonable access, Mr. Sisco continues to no longer fish and enjoy [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach during the normal and reasonable hours he would normally fish and enjoy the natural beauty and leisure activities at [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach.

. . . .

16. Neighboring Oneloa Beach (Big Beach) has hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

18. Based on the DLNR's actions in closing the gate and [limiting] access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach MR. SISCO has been harmed in not having reasonable access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach for fishing purposes and to enjoy the use and natural beauty of the beach during reasonable hours.

19. MR. SISCO's harm continues each week as he is prevented from enjoying [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach during reasonable hours on the weekend.

In his prayer for relief, Sisco sought "a declaratory

judgment that DLNR has violated the law and [his] rights" and

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"appropriate injunctive relief[,]" as well as "reasonable

attorney's fees and costs . . . ."

In lieu of an answer, DLNR moved to dismiss all seven

counts "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted" under Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule 12(b)(6).

After a hearing on DLNR's motion, the circuit court

dismissed all counts with prejudice. The circuit court also

denied Sisco's request to again amend his complaint after

determining Sisco could not prove any set of facts supporting

any of the counts, and none of the claims supported the

requested relief. 2

The court entered final judgment in favor of DLNR and

against Sisco as to all claims, and Sisco timely appealed.

it concluded he had not pled sufficient facts to assert any of

the seven counts against DLNR. We review the trial court's

ruling on a motion to dismiss de novo. Nakamoto v. Kawauchi,

142 Hawai‘i 259, 268, 418 P.3d 600, 609 (2018). The circuit

court erred in dismissing Counts 4 and 5, but did not err in

2 Notably, Sisco does not challenge the circuit court's denial of his request for leave to file a second amended complaint. Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) ("Points not presented in accordance with this section will be disregarded[.]").

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dismissing the remaining counts of Sisco's First Amended

Complaint.

(1) The circuit court erred in dismissing Counts 4 and 5.

(a) Count 4 (Nuisance)

In Count 4, Sisco alleged DLNR's conduct violated

"common law nuisance[,]" and that "[a]s a direct and proximate

result of said unlawful practices [he] has suffered the loss of

enjoyment of the use of [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach during reasonable

hours."

Hawai‘i courts have recognized common law nuisance

claims. Haynes v. Haas, 146 Hawai‘i 452, 453, 463 P.3d 1109,

1110 (2020) (allowing recovery of damages for public nuisance

absent explicit statutory prohibition of challenged conduct).

"To satisfy pleading requirements, facts must be

alleged in support of the four distinct elements of a public

nuisance claim: (1) the existence of a public right; (2) a

substantial and unreasonable interference with that right by the

defendant; (3) proximate cause; and (4) injury." 58 Am. Jur. 2d

Nuisances § 168 (2025) (formatting altered) (citing City of

Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099, 1113

(Ill. 2004) ("A sufficient pleading in a public nuisance cause

of action will allege a right common to the general public, the

transgression of that right by the defendant, and resulting

injury.")).

5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"The preliminary question of whether the complaint

states facts which, if proved, would permit the case to go to

the jury is for the judge, but where [people] may well differ

upon the reasonableness and the decency of the actions

complained of, the question should be submitted to the jury

. . . ." Fraser v. Morrison, 39 Haw. 370, 376 (Haw. Terr.

1952), abrogated on other grounds by Hac v. Univ. of Hawai‘i, 102

Hawai‘i 92, 73 P.3d 46 (2003).

Here, the circuit court concluded that the "limited

closure of [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. on

Saturdays and Sundays . . . does not constitute a nuisance in

and of itself."

Sisco's allegation that he is "kept out of [Pu‘u Ōla‘i]

Beach" implicates the existence of a public right, because the

public has a right to access Hawai‘i's beaches. See County of

Hawai‘i v. Sotomura, 55 Haw. 176, 181-82, 517 P.2d 57, 61-62

(1973) ("The Ashford decision was a judicial recognition of

long-standing public use of [Hawaiʻi's] beaches to an easily

recognizable boundary that has ripened into a customary

right. . . . Public policy, as interpreted by this court, favors

extending to public use and ownership as much of [Hawaiʻi's]

shoreline as is reasonably possible." (citation omitted)).

6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Next, as to the substantial and unreasonable

interference element, Sisco alleged DLNR "unreasonably limit[ed]

the access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach and on Saturday and Sundays

closes the gate at 4.p.m."

Finally, as to proximate cause and injury, Sisco

alleged a loss of enjoyment due to his inability to fish and to

enjoy the natural beauty of Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach as a "direct and

proximate result" of DLNR's conduct. See Akau v. Olohana Corp.,

65 Haw. 383, 389-90, 652 P.2d 1130, 1135 (1982) (recognizing for

standing purposes that injuries to recreational interests are

cognizable).

Thus, Sisco alleged sufficient facts supporting the

four distinct elements of a public nuisance claim, and the

circuit court erred in dismissing Count 4 with prejudice.

(b) Count 5 (Public Trust)

In Count 5, Sisco claimed DLNR's conduct violated the

"easement by public trust." On appeal, Sisco claims "[i]t is

clear, based on" his First Amended Complaint and the "common law

doctrine of public trust that Mr. Sisco has pled sufficient

facts to state a claim . . . ."

Though "easement by public trust" has not been

expressly adopted, article XI, section 1 of the Hawai‘i

Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that

7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect [Hawai‘i's] natural beauty and all natural resources, including . . . water, . . . and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.

The supreme court has also held that land along the

shoreline below the high water mark of the ocean is a natural

resource, owned by the state, and held in trust for the

enjoyment of certain public rights. Sotomura, 55 Haw. at 183-

84, 517 P.2d at 63. Thus, the state's beaches are held in trust

for public use and enjoyment.

Here, the circuit court concluded the First Amended

Complaint "is devoid of allegations that DLNR, which manages

lands in the state park system, has a trustee duty to make those

lands accessible to the public without restriction." (Emphasis

added.)

But Sisco did not seek unrestricted access. Instead,

Sisco alleged "DLNR's actions in closing the gate and [limiting]

access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach" harmed him, because he no longer

has "reasonable access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach for fishing purposes

and to enjoy the use and natural beauty of the beach during

reasonable hours."

Sisco is entitled to proceed in his theory that

closing Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach for six hours each week is an

unreasonable restriction under the public trust, notwithstanding

that adjacent beaches are open at those times.

8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Thus, the circuit court erred in dismissing Count 5

with prejudice.

(2) The circuit court did not err in dismissing the remaining counts.

(a) Count 1 (HRS § 7-1)

In Count 1, Sisco alleged violation of HRS § 7-1. HRS

§ 7-1 provides:

§ 7-1 Building materials, water, etc.; landlords' titles subject to tenants' use. Where the landlords have obtained, or may hereafter obtain, allodial titles to their lands, the people on each of their lands shall not be deprived of the right to take firewood, house-timber, aho cord, thatch, or ki leaf, from the land on which they live, for their own private use, but they shall not have a right to take such articles to sell for profit. The people shall also have a right to drinking water, and running water, and the right of way. The springs of water, running water, and roads shall be free to all, on all lands granted in fee simple; provided that this shall not be applicable to wells and watercourses, which individuals have made for their own use.

(Some formatting altered.)

Sisco, however, did not allege that he resided within

the same ahupua‘a as Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach. See Kalipi v. Hawaiian Tr.

Co., 66 Haw. 1, 7-8, 656 P.2d 745, 749 (1982) (interpreting the

"gathering rights of § 7-1 to assure that lawful occupants

[i.e., persons residing within the ahupua‘a in which they seek to

exercise gathering rights] of an [ahupua‘a] may, for the purposes

of practicing native Hawaiian customs and traditions, enter

undeveloped lands within the [ahupua‘a] to gather those items

enumerated in the statute").

9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Sisco also did not allege that Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach was a

traditional gathering area utilized by tenants of other ahupua‘a.

See Pele Def. Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 620, 837 P.2d 1247,

1272 (1992) ("We therefore hold that native Hawaiian rights

protected by article XII, § 7 may extend beyond the ahupua‘a in

which a native Hawaiian resides where such rights have been

customarily and traditionally exercised in this manner.").

Thus, the circuit court did not err in dismissing

Count 1.

(b) Count 2 (HRS Chapter 205A)

In Count 2, Sisco alleged DLNR's conduct violated HRS

Chapter 205A, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Sisco's

challenge, however, was untimely.

Sisco does not dispute the circuit court's finding

that his counsel clarified the CZMA claim challenges the

"construction of the gate at the main access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i]

Beach itself, rather than a challenge to the hours of closure."

Sisco alleged "DLNR put up a gate to the access to [Pu‘u Ōla‘i]

Beach" on or about January 5, 2020.

Under HRS § 205A-6 (2017), "any person . . . may

commence a civil action alleging that any agency" has not

complied with the CZMA's objectives, policies, and guidelines or

not performed any act or duty required by the CZMA within sixty

days of the act underlying the civil action. HRS § 205A-6(a),

10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(d) (emphasis added). Sisco, however, filed his initial

complaint on March 31, 2023, more than three years later.

Count 2.

(c) Count 3 ("Common Law Customs")

In Count 3, Sisco claimed DLNR violated "common law

customs" and he was entitled to "relief as provided by law."

Sisco cites to no specific legal authority, and we

decline to guess the legal authority on which he relies to

assert "common law customs." Even liberally construing this

claim as we must, we cannot say the First Amended Complaint

provided DLNR fair notice of the grounds upon which his claim

rests. See HRCP Rule 8; Adams v. Dole Food Co., 132 Hawai‘i 478,

488, 323 P.3d 122, 132 (App. 2014) ("[Hawaiʻi's] rules of notice

pleading require that a complaint set forth a short and plain

statement of the claim that provides defendant with fair notice

of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which the

claim rests. Pleadings must be construed liberally." (citations

omitted)).

Count 3.

(d) Count 6 (HRS Chapter 115)

In Count 6, Sisco claimed DLNR violated "HRS §§ 115-1,

et seq."

11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Et seq. is an abbreviation for the Latin "et

sequentia," meaning "those (pages or sections) that follow[.]"

Et seq., Black's Law Dictionary 693 (12th ed. 2024). HRS

Chapter 115 comprises ten sections. Although Sisco block quotes

HRS §§ 115-1 and -4 in his opening brief, Sisco makes no

argument to this court as to those sections or any other section

within HRS Chapter 115. See State v. Kahanaoi, 128 Hawai‘i 313,

288 P.3d 131, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2012 WL 5359188, at *2 (App.

Oct. 31, 2012) (SDO) ("It is not the obligation of this court to

research and construct the legal arguments open to parties,

especially when they are represented by counsel." (citation

Thus, we decline to address Sisco's contention on

appeal as to this count.

(e) Count 7 (HRS § 91-7)

In Count 7, Sisco alleged "DLNR violated HRS § 91-7 in

adopting the rule/policy of closing [Pu‘u Ōla‘i] Beach at

unreasonable hours on the weekend, including violating

rulemaking statutory procedures."

Sisco does not challenge DLNR's authority to adopt and

implement rules relating to public access; rather, he challenges

the reasonableness of the closure times, generally asserting

that it contravenes HRS § 91-7. We are not required to accept

Sisco's conclusory allegation that the scheduled closure of Pu‘u

12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Ōla‘i Beach on weekend evenings is a "rule" under HRS Chapter 91.

See Kealoha v. Machado, 131 Hawai‘i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225

(2013) ("The court is not required to accept conclusory

allegations on the legal effect of the events alleged."

(citation modified)). And Sisco presents no argument or

analysis for the court to conclude that the scheduled closure of

Pu‘u Ōla‘i Beach on weekend evenings is a "rule" under HRS

Chapter 91, subject to statutory rulemaking procedures.

Count 7.

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the portions of the

circuit court's order related to dismissing Counts 4 and 5 with

prejudice; we otherwise affirm. We remand this case for further

proceedings consistent with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 31, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Joseph T. Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Jubin Fujiwara, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Marcos R. Bendaña, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Julie H. China, Associate Judge Melissa D. Goldman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant-Appellee.