Spriestersbach v. State of Hawaii

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JOSHUA SPRIESTERSBACH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAII, 	CITY AND
COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OFFICER
ABRAHAM K. BRUHN, 	DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, 	OFFICE OF THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER, NIETZSCHE LYNN
TOLAN, MICHELLE MURAOKA, LESLIE
MALOIAN, JACQUELINE ESSER, JASON
BAKER, MERLINDA GARMA, SETH
PATEK, DR. JOHN COMPTON, DR.
MELISSA VARGO, DR. SHARON TISZA,
HAWAII STATE HOSPITAL, DR.
ALLISON GARRETT, 	JOHN/JANE DOES
1-20,
Defendants.
CIV. NO. 21-00456 LEK-RT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE
ORDER DATED 09.28.23 WHICH DENIES PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY
TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
In a September 28, 2023 entering order (“9/28/23 EO”),
the magistrate judge ruled that the deadline to add parties and
amend pleadings had expired, except for the October 10, 2023
deadline to file an amended complaint against Defendant City and
County of Honolulu (“the City”). 	[Dkt. no. 246.] 	Before the
Court is Plaintiff Joshua Spriestersbach’s (“Spriestersbach” or
“Plaintiff”) objections to the 9/28 EO (“Objections”), filed on
October 11, 2023. 	[Dkt. no. 248.] 	On October 18, 2023, the
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 1 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

2
City and Defendant Dr. Allison Garrett (“Dr. Garrett”) filed
their respective responses to the Objections. 	[Dkt. nos. 249,
251.] 	The Court has considered the Objections as a non-hearing
matter pursuant to Rule LR7.1(d) of the Local Rules of Practice
for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
(“Local Rules”). 	Spriestersbach’s Objections are hereby denied
and the 9/28/23 EO is hereby affirmed for the reasons set forth
below.
BACKGROUND
Spriestersbach initiated this action on November 21,
2021. 	See Complaint, filed 11/21/21 (dkt. no. 1). 	On
August 18, 2022, this Court issued an order that, inter alia,
granted in part and denied in part the City’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (“8/18/22 Order”). 	[Dkt. no. 151. 1 ]
Judgment on the pleadings was granted in favor of the City as to
all of Spriestersbach’s claims against it, but he was granted
leave to amend those claims. 	8/18/22 Order, 622 F. Supp. 3d at
971. 	Spriestersbach was instructed to file his amended
complaint by September 16, 2022, and this Court expressly stated
that “leave to amend is limited to adding further allegations to
support the claims that Spriestersbach asserted against the City
1 The 8/18/22 Order is also available at 622 F. Supp. 3d
948.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 2 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

3
in the Complaint, and Spriestersbach does not have leave to add
new claims against the City.” 	Id.
During a September 13, 2022 status conference, the
magistrate judge directed the parties’ counsel to meet and
confer regarding issues related to the question of
Spriestersbach’s competency to prosecute this case. 	In light of
this and other issues, the magistrate judge extended the
September 16, 2022 deadline in the 8/18/22 Order to October 17,
2022. 	See Minutes, filed 9/13/22 (dkt. no. 164), at
PageID.1418.
On October 13, 2022, this Court approved the parties’
stipulation to hold the deadline for the filing of
Spriestersbach’s amended claims against the City in abeyance
pending the resolution of the issue of whether a guardian should
be appointed to litigate this case on Spriestersbach’s behalf.
[Stipulation to Extend Deadline to File First Amended Complaint
and Order, filed 10/13/22 (dkt. no. 177) (“10/13/22 Stipulated
Order”).] 	The 10/13/22 Stipulated Order stated that
Spriestersbach “shall have up to fourteen (14) calendar days
following entry of a court order finally determining Plaintiff’s
prospective motion to substitute a guardian on behalf of
Plaintiff Joshua Spriestersbach, to file an amended complaint
against the City & County of Honolulu.” 	[Id. at 2.] 	The
10/13/22 Stipulated Order acknowledged that it was signed by
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 3 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

4
“[a]ll remaining parties who have appeared in this action.”
[Id.] 	As of that time, the general deadline to add parties and
amend pleadings was November 29, 2022. 	See Rule 16 Scheduling
Order, filed 6/23/22 (dkt. no. 144) (“6/23/22 Scheduling
Order”), at ¶ 2.
During a November 14, 2022 telephone conference, the
magistrate judge stated that the deadline to add parties and
amend pleadings would be held in abeyance, pending a December 6,
2022 telephone conference. 	[Minutes, filed 11/14/22 (dkt.
no. 186), at PageID.1485.] 	During the December 6, 2022
telephone conference, the magistrate judge directed the parties
to meet and confer to suggest a proposed briefing schedule
regarding the competency issue, and the magistrate judge noted
the parties’ agreement to hold discovery issues in abeyance
until the competency issue was resolved. 	See Minutes, filed
12/6/22 (dkt. no. 193). 	However, the Minutes of the December 6,
2022 telephone conference do not mention the deadline to add
parties and amend pleadings. 	On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff’s
counsel submitted the parties’ joint proposed briefing schedule
for the guardianship and competency issues. 	[Letter, filed
12/7/22 (dkt. no. 196).] 	It stated that “all counsel join in a
request that the case calendar be suspended, and all dates reset
after the guardianship/competency issues are resolved.” 	[Id.]
However, the magistrate judge’s EO setting the briefing schedule
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 4 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

5
did not address the parties’ request to suspend all deadlines.
[EO, filed 12/8/22 (dkt. no. 197).]
On June 7, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order
requiring Spriestersbach to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and
denying the motion to substitute a guardian as the plaintiff in
this case. 	[Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for a Court-
Ordered Psychiatric Evaluation of Plaintiff Joshua
Spriestersbach, and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Substitute Guardian Robert A. Griffith as Plaintiff, filed
6/7/23 (dkt. no. 236) (redacted version) (“6/7/23 Order”).] 	The
6/7/23 Order triggered the fourteen-day period for
Spriestersbach to file his amended complaint, as set forth in
the 10/13/22 Stipulated Order, but the magistrate judge held the
deadline in abeyance, pending the completion of the competency
evaluation. 	See Minutes - EP Telephone Conference, filed
6/20/23 (dkt. no. 241), at PageID.2495. 	The psychiatric
evaluation of Spriestersbach was filed, under seal, on
September 27, 2023. 	[Dkt. no. 243.] 	The magistrate judge held
a telephonic conference on the same date, see Minutes - EP:
Telephone Conference and Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, filed
9/27/23 (dkt. no. 244), and the 9/28 EO followed. 	Also on
September 28, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an Amended
Rule 16 Scheduling Order. 	[Dkt. no. 245.]
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 5 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

6
Spriestersbach filed his First Amended Complaint on
October 18, 2023. 	[Dkt. no. 250.] 	He states it responds to the
8/18/22 Order, which permitted him to amend his claims against
the City, and he notes that he is pursuing his objections to the
magistrate judge’s ruling that the deadline to make other
amendments to the original Complaint expired. 	[Id. at pgs. 1-2
n.1.]
In the instant Objections, Spriestersbach argues his
counsel could not amend his claims against the non-City
defendants while the issue of his competency was pending.
[Objections at 3.] 	He asserts “[a]ll of the parties to this
action acted as though everything in this case was stayed
pending the resolution of the competency issue in the period
from October 2022 to September 27, 2023,” and that “all of the
actions by the parties and the Court indicated that all
deadlines were held in abeyance pending the resolution of
Plaintiff’s competence.” 	[Id.] 	Spriestersbach emphasizes that
leave to amend should be granted freely and that a scheduling
order can be amended if there is good cause. 	[Id. at 3-4.]
DISCUSSION
The 9/28/23 EO is a nondispositive order. 	This
district court has stated:
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allows a party to object to a
nondispositive magistrate judge order “within 14
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 6 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

7
days after being served with a copy” of it. 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a). 	It further provides, “The
district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of
the order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” 	Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district
judge may “reconsider” a magistrate judge’s
nondispositive pretrial order if it is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 	See also Bhan v.
NME Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414-15 (9th Cir.
1991) (stating that § 636(b)(1) “provides that
the magistrate’s decision on a nondispositive
issue will be reviewed by the district judge
under the clearly erroneous standard”). 	The
Ninth Circuit has explained, “Pretrial orders of
a magistrate under 636(b)(1)(A) are reviewable
under the ‘clearly erroneous and contrary to law’
standard; they are not subject to de novo
determination. 	The reviewing court may not
simply substitute its judgment for that of the
deciding court.” 	Grimes v. City & Cty. of San
Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991)
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
The threshold of the “clearly erroneous”
test is high. 	“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’
when although there is evidence to support it,
the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” 	United States v.
U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); accord
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001)
(stating that, in reviewing for clear error, “a
reviewing court must ask whether, on the entire
evidence, it is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed”
(quotation marks and citation omitted)); United
States v. Hylton, 30 F.4th 842, 846 (9th Cir.
2022) (reviewing a district court’s findings of
facts with respect to a denial of a motion to
suppress and stating, “Review under the clearly
erroneous standard is significantly deferential,
requiring for reversal a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
(quotation marks and citation omitted)); Balen v.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 7 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

8
Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 655 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“Review under the clearly erroneous
standard is significantly deferential, requiring
a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” (quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
“‘A decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it
applies an incorrect legal standard or fails to
consider an element of the applicable standard.’”
Green v. Kanazawa, 2018 WL 5621953, at *3 (D.
Haw. Oct. 30, 2018) (quoting Na Pali Haweo Cmty.
Ass’n v. Grande, 252 F.R.D. 672, 674 (D. Haw.
2008)).
Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Semisub, Inc., CIVIL NO. 22-00349
SOM/KJM, 2022 WL 5182650, at *2 (D. Hawai`i Oct. 5, 2022).
The magistrate judge’s finding that the deadline to
add parties and amend pleadings expired, except for the deadline
to amend the claims against the City, was not clearly erroneous.
The November 29, 2022 deadline to add parties and amend
pleadings was clearly stated in the 6/23/22 Scheduling Order.
See 6/23/22 Scheduling Order at ¶ 2. 	That deadline was
suspended pending the December 6, 2022 telephone conference, see
Minutes, filed 11/14/22 (dkt. no. 186), at PageID.1485, but the
deadline was not expressly vacated, nor was it held in abeyance
pending the resolution of the guardianship and competency
issues. 	On December 8, 2022, when the magistrate judge set the
guardianship/competency briefing schedule, the magistrate judge
did not address the parties’ request to suspend all deadlines,
effectively denying that request. 	Although the magistrate judge
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 8 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

9
did not set a new deadline when the request was denied, because
the deadline to add parties and amend pleadings was only held in
abeyance pending the December 6, 2022 status conference, the
deadline to add parties and amend pleadings expired after the
December 8, 2022 denial of the request to suspend all deadlines.
The arguments that Spriestersbach presents in the
Objections are arguments that should be presented in a motion
seeking to amend the current scheduling order, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and seeking leave to file a second amended
complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Spriestersbach’s arguments do not establish that the 9/28/23 EO
was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 	He has
therefore failed to present any grounds that warrant reversal of
the 9/28/23 EO.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Spriestersbach’s Objections
to Magistrate Order Dated 09.28.23 Which Denies Plaintiff
Opportunity to Amend Complaint, filed October 11, 2023, is
HEREBY DENIED, and the magistrate judge’s September 28, 2023
entering order is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 9 of 10
PageID.<pageID>

10
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, November 28, 2023.
JOSHUA SPRIESTERSBACH VS. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL; CV 21-00456
LEK-RT; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE ORDER
DATED 09.28.23 WHICH DENIES PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND
COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 280 Filed 11/28/23 Page 10 of 10
PageID.<pageID>