Court Opinion

ID: 9959826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 18:04:28.391678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:55.483425
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 12-APR-2024
                                                 07:57 AM
                                                 Dkt. 121 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

               NOE RAQUINIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                 v.
   COUNTY OF HAWAI#I; HAWAI#I POLICE DEPARTMENT; JEREMY LEWIS;
    EDWARD LEWIS; MARCO SEGOBIA; KYLE HIRAYAMA; SEAN SMITH;
       MICHAEL HARDIE; FRANK MILLER, Defendants-Appellees

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                       (CASE NO. 3CC19100099K)

                     SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
  (By:   Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

           Noe Raquinio, representing himself,1 appeals from the
"Final Judgment" entered by the Circuit Court of the Third
Circuit on December 18, 2019.2 We affirm.
          Raquinio was arrested on January 11, 2017, by Hawai#i
County Police Department (HCPD) officer Marco Segobia. He was
indicted for promoting a dangerous drug in the first degree,
promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, and prohibited
acts related to drug paraphernalia, all related to the
January 11, 2017 arrest. He pleaded guilty to promoting a

     1
            Raquinio's opening brief does not comply with Hawai#i Rules of
Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b), but we interpret the brief liberally and do
not foreclose Raquinio from appellate review just because he didn't comply
with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-
28 (2020).
     2
           The Honorable Robert D.S. Kim presided.
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dangerous drug in the second degree. On January 19, 2018, he was
convicted and sentenced to four years probation. He did not
appeal his conviction.
          On July 9, 2018, Raquinio sued HCPD, Segobia, and HCPD
officers Jeremy Lewis, Edward Lewis, and Kyle Hirayama in federal
court. He alleged various claims relating to his January 11,
2017 arrest. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The federal court granted the motion and entered judgment.
Raquinio appealed. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as
frivolous. Raquinio v. Haw. Police Dep't, No. 19-15849, 2019 WL
8586298 (9th Cir. dismissed Nov. 11, 2019) (mem.). The mandate
issued on December 16, 2019. Id.3
          Raquinio petitioned the state circuit court for post-
conviction relief under Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40
on October 15, 2019. We take judicial notice of the documents
filed in 3PR19100002K (the Rule 40 Proceeding).4 Raquinio argued
that he received ineffective assistance from his defense counsel,
Frank Miller. The court denied the petition. Raquinio appealed.
We vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Raquinio v. State, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 1284969 (Haw.
App. Apr. 29, 2022) (SDO). On remand, Raquinio moved to dismiss.
The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the Rule 40
Proceeding with prejudice.
          Raquinio filed the complaint below on April 22, 2019.
Named as defendants were HCPD, Jeremy, Edward, Segobia, Hirayama,
HCPD officers Sean Smith and Michael Hardie (collectively, the
HCPD Defendants), and Miller. The HCPD Defendants moved to
dismiss. Miller filed a substantive joinder. The circuit court
entered an order granting the motion on October 15, 2019. The
Final Judgment was entered for the HCPD Defendants and Miller,
against Raquinio. This appeal followed.

      3
            We take judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit order and mandate
under Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 201(c) (2016).
      4
            See HRE Rule 201(c).

                                      2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           The motion to dismiss was supported by 12 exhibits.
Exhibit "3" was a copy of Raquinio's January 11, 2017 arrest
report. The circuit court considered the arrest report in ruling
on the motion to dismiss. We apply the standard of review for a
motion for summary judgment. See Hawai#i Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 12(b). We review a grant of summary judgment de
novo. Nozawa v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 142
Hawai#i 331, 338, 418 P.3d 1187, 1194 (2018). Summary judgment
is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Id. at 342, 418 P.3d at 1198. We "may affirm a grant of summary
judgment on any ground appearing in the record, even if the
circuit court did not rely on it." Reyes v. Kuboyama, 76 Hawai#i
137, 140, 870 P.2d 1281, 1284 (1994).
           (1) The HCPD Defendants were entitled to summary
judgment. Raquinio's tort and civil rights claims against the
HCPD Defendants all relate to his arrest on January 11, 2017.
They accrued at the latest on January 12, 2017, when he was
released from custody. His complaint below was filed on
April 22, 2019, over two years later. His claims are time-
barred. HRS § 657-7 (2016); Pele Def. Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578,
595, 837 P.2d 1247, 1259 (1992) (holding that two-year statute of
limitations in HRS § 657–7 governs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions).
          Raquinio's claims against the HCPD Defendants are also
barred because a criminal defendant who has not overturned their
conviction cannot maintain a civil tort lawsuit based on claims
that necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction.
Penaflor v. Mossman, 141 Hawai#i 358, 363-64, 409 P.3d 762, 767-
68 (App. 2017) (discussing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-86
(1994)).
          Raquinio's briefs contain no discernible argument about
his claims for injunctive relief. The circuit court did not err
by granting the HCPD Defendants' motion.
          (2) None of the four counts in Raquinio's complaint
alleged a claim against Miller.       The complaint states only that

                                  3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Miller and the deputy prosecuting attorney did not let Raquinio
enter the courtroom for a hearing on a motion to suppress.
Construed liberally, that could allege ineffective assistance of
counsel. But Raquinio made that claim in the Rule 40 Proceeding.
It was dismissed with prejudice. "[A] dismissal 'with
prejudice'[] is an adjudication on the merits of all the issues
that were raised or could have been raised in the pleadings.
Thus, subsequent litigation involving the same claims would be
barred by res judicata." Land v. Highway Constr. Co., 64 Haw.
545, 551, 645 P.2d 295, 299 (1982).
          For these reasons, the December 18, 2019 "Final
Judgment" is affirmed.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 12, 2024.

On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Noe Raquinio,                         Acting Chief Judge
Self-represented
Plaintiff-Appellant.                  /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                      Associate Judge
Calvin E. Young,
Deirdre Marie-Iha,                    /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Christopher P. St. Sure,              Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee
Frank Miller.

                                  4