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 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Spriestersbach’s
(“Spriestersbach”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”),
filed on January 14, 2022. 	[Dkt. no. 27.] 	Defendant City and
County of Honolulu (“the City”) filed its memorandum in
opposition on February 8, 2022, and Spriestersbach filed his
reply on February 25, 2022. 1 	[Dkt. nos. 50, 55.] 	This matter
came on for hearing on March 11, 2022. 	For the reasons set
1 Other filings were submitted regarding the Motion, see
dkt. nos. 52, 56, 59, but they are not addressed in this Order
because the Motion only seeks relief against the City.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

2
forth below, Spriestersbach’s Motion is denied, without
prejudice to the filing of a new motion seeking a preliminary
injunction, if warranted by additional developments in this
case.
BACKGROUND
The instant case arises from Spriestersbach’s May 11,
2017 arrest for crimes committed by Thomas R. Castleberry and
Spriestersbach’s subsequent detention related to that arrest
until January 17, 2020. 	See Complaint, filed 11/21/21 (dkt.
no. 1), at ¶ 2. 	The Complaint alleges thirteen claims against
seventeen defendants. 	Relevant to the instant Motion,
Spriestersbach alleges the following claims against the City: a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging violations of Spriestersbach’s
rights under the Fourth Amendment; a § 1983 claim alleging
violations of Spriestersbach’s due process rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment; disability discrimination, in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.;
a § 1983 claim alleging abuse of process, in violation of
Spriestersbach’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); and
negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”).
I. 	Evidence Presented with the Motion
On July 24, 2009, a Circuit Court of the State of
Hawai`i issued a Bench Warrant for Thomas R. Castleberry after
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

3
he failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his
probation in a 2006 criminal case (“Castleberry Warrant”). 2 	See
Motion, Decl. of Attorney Alphonse A. Gerhardstein in Supp. of
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Gerhardstein Decl.”),
Exh. A-2 (version of Castleberry Warrant returned after
Spriestersbach’s May 11, 2017 arrest) at PageID #: 138. 3
Spriestersbach has testified that he has a mental
health disability, and he lived unhoused in Hawai`i for several
years before 2017. 	[Motion, Decl. of Plaintiff Joshua
Spriestersbach in Supp. of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(“Spriestersbach Decl.”) at ¶¶ 2, 5.] 	On October 14, 2011, when
he was arrested for sleeping on a stairwell, he gave the name
“Castleberry,” with no first name, to the arresting officer. 4
[Id. at ¶ 7.] 	According to Spriestersbach, he was arrested for
an outstanding warrant for Thomas R. Castleberry, but he was
later released without a court appearance. 	Id. at ¶¶ 8-9; see
also Gerhardstein Decl., Exh. A-5 (Honolulu Police Department
(“HPD”) documents related to the 10/14/11 arrest).
2 The case is State of Hawai`i v. Thomas R. Castleberry,
Case No. 1PC-06-1-001421 (“Castleberry Criminal Case”).
3 A redacted version of Exhibit A-2 was among the exhibits
attached to the Redacted Declaration of Attorney Alphonse A.
Gerhardstein in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
filed on March 7, 2022. 	[Dkt. no. 74.]
4 Spriestersbach’s grandfather was named William C.
Castleberry. 	[Spriestersbach Decl. at ¶ 7.]
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

4
On January 17, 2015, Spriestersbach was arrested for
sleeping in a park in Honolulu. 	Spriestersbach told the
arresting officer his name was Joshua Spriestersbach.
Spriestersbach Decl. at ¶ 10; see also Gerhardstein Decl.,
Exh. A-7 (HPD documents related to the 1/17/15 arrest).
According to Spriestersbach, at that time, “Joshua
Spriestersbach” was listed as an alias for Thomas Castleberry.
[Spriestersbach Decl. at ¶ 11.] 	However, after booking,
Spriestersbach was released because his fingerprints did not
match Thomas R Castleberry’s fingerprints. 	[Id.]
On May 11, 2017, Spriestersbach was arrested after he
fell asleep on a sidewalk while waiting in a food distribution
line. 	Spriestersbach gave his full name, birth date, and social
security number to the HPD officer who arrested him. 	Although
Spriestersbach did not know it at the time, he was arrested for
the Castleberry Warrant. 	[Id. at ¶ 12.]
Spriestersbach does not currently live in Hawai`i, but
he states he “love[s] Hawai`i” and “would like the opportunity
to return to Hawai`i free of the risk of being arrested again on
the outstanding 2009 warrant for Thomas Castleberry or for any
other crimes committed by Thomas Castleberry.” 	[Id. at ¶ 18.]
In the instant Motion, Spriestersbach asks this Court to enter a
preliminary injunction requiring the City “to correct the
H.P.D.’s database and warrant by removing [his] name as an alias
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 4 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

5
for Thomas Castleberry, and removing any other information
indicating [he] is responsible for Thomas Castleberry’s crimes
and to take any other action necessary to implement the order.”
[Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 11.]
II. 	Developments After the Filing of the Motion
The City presents evidence that an “active advisory”
for Spriestersbach has been entered in HPD’s internal Case
Reporting System (“CRS”), stating Spriestersbach is not to be
arrested for offenses by or warrants for Thomas R. Castleberry.
[Mem. in Opp., Decl. of Alexander Waseleski, IV (“Waseleski
Decl.”) at ¶¶ 7, 15. 5 ] 	All HPD personnel can access the CRS, and
the active advisory would be visible on the initial screen shown
in a search of Spriestersbach’s name. 	[Id. at ¶¶ 8, 17.]
Detective Waseleski states that HPD does not control or
maintain: the Hawai`i Criminal Justice Data Center (“HCJDC”)
database; the State of Hawai`i Adult Criminal Information portal
that allows public access to the HCJDC database; nor the State
of Hawai`i Judiciary’s case dockets or other databases. 	[Id. at
¶¶ 4-6.] 	Further, the HPD CRS does not interface with any of
5 Alexander Waseleski, IV is an HPD Detective, assigned to
the Information Technology Division. 	[Waseleski Decl. at ¶¶ 2-
3.] 	Detective Waseleski personally entered the active advisory
for Spriestersbach, and he personally entered a similar one for
Thomas Castleberry, stating Castleberry is not to be arrested
for offenses by or warrants for Spriestersbach. 	[Id. at ¶¶ 15-
16.]
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 5 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

6
those databases. 	[Id. at ¶ 9.] 	HPD sent a letter, dated
February 18, 2022, to the HCJDC, requesting that HCJDC’s records
regarding Spriestersbach’s May 11, 2017 arrest be corrected
and/or expunged. 	[Mem. in Opp., Decl. of Derek T. Mayeshiro
(“Mayeshiro Decl.”), Exh. A (letter to Christopher D.W. Young,
HCJDC Administrator, from Major Joseph A. Trinidad, HPD Records
and Identification Division).]
In addition to the instant case, Spriestersbach has
attempted to obtain relief, including the correction of state
court records, in his state court Hawai`i Rule of Penal
Procedure 40 proceedings, Joshua Spriestersbach, a.k.a. Thomas
Ralph Castleberry v. State of Hawai`i, Case No. 1CPN-21-0000032
(“Spriestersbach Rule 40 Case”). 	See Plaintiff’s Statement per
Court Order of 1/21/22, filed 1/28/22 (dkt. no. 43), at 4. 	On
January 22, 2022, the state court in the Spriestersbach Rule 40
Case issued the Order Regarding Petition to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct Judgment or to Release Petitioner for [sic] Custody
Filed August 2, 2021 (“1/22/22 Rule 40 Order”). 	[Id. at PageID
#: 283-87 (1/22/22 Rule 40 Order).] 	The state court granted
part of Spriestersbach’s Rule 40 petition and ordered that the
records about Spriestersbach in the Castleberry Criminal Case be
removed from the Castleberry Criminal Case and preserved in a
special proceedings case. 	[Id. at PageID #: 287.]
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 6 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

7
STANDARD
This Court has described the standards that apply to a
motion for a preliminary injunction as follows:
“[I]njunctive relief is an extraordinary
remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to
such relief.” 	Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365,
376, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). . . .
Sakala v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, CV.
No. 10–00578 DAE–LEK, 2011 WL 719482, at *4 (D.
Hawai`i Feb. 22, 2011) . . . .
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest. 	Am.
Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559
F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed.
2d 249 (2008)) (explaining that, “[t]o the
extent that [the Ninth Circuit’s] cases have
suggested a lesser standard, they are no
longer controlling, or even viable”
(footnote omitted)); see also Winter, 129 S.
Ct. at 374–76 (holding that, even where a
likelihood of success on the merits is
established, a mere “possibility” of
irreparable injury is insufficient to
warrant preliminary injunctive relief,
because “[i]ssuing a preliminary injunction
based only on a possibility of irreparable
harm is inconsistent with [the Supreme
Court’s] characterization of injunctive
relief as an extraordinary remedy that may
only be awarded upon a clear showing that
the plaintiff is entitled to such relief”).
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 7 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

8
Painsolvers, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 685 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1128–29 (D. Hawai`i
2010) (footnote and some citations omitted)
(alterations in original). . . .
Kelley O’Neil’s Inc. v. Ige, CIVIL NO. 20-00449 LEK-RT, 2021 WL
767851, at *4 (D. Hawai`i Feb. 26, 2021) (some alterations in
Kelley O’Neil’s) (some citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Scope of the Motion
At the outset, this Court emphasizes that it considers
the scope of Spriestersbach’s request for injunctive relief to
be limited to what is set forth in the Motion. 	First, this
Court notes that Spriestersbach improperly presented the
testimony of his expert regarding law enforcement data
management systems, Jeffrey Gottstein, with his reply. 	This
Court rejects Spriestersbach’s argument that his presentation of
Mr. Gottstein’s testimony was proper because Spriestersbach was
merely responding to Detective Waseleski’s testimony.
Spriestersbach could have anticipated that expert testimony
about the types of data systems that would need to be corrected
in order to achieve the injunctive relief sought would be
relevant to the Motion, and Spriestersbach could have been
presented such testimony with the Motion itself.
Mr. Gottstein’s testimony is therefore stricken because
Spriestersbach improperly presented it in his reply. 	See
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 8 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

9
generally Local Rule LR7.2 (“Any argument raised for the first
time in the reply shall be disregarded.”).
Similarly, as to the specific terms of the preliminary
injunction sought, at the hearing on the Motion, Spriestersbach
argued in favor of terms that went beyond the terms that are
requested in the Motion. 	Based on representations made by
Spriestersbach, the additional requests appear to have been
prompted by information obtained after filing the Motion. 	The
additional requests are therefore denied because they are not
properly before this Court, nor are they adequately supported by
the evidence presented in the Motion. 	The analysis in this
Order focuses solely upon the relief expressly sought in the
Motion. 	See Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 11, quoted infra.
II. 	Imminent, Irreparable Harm
Under the circumstances of this case, the critical
factor in the Winter analysis is whether Spriestersbach faces
imminent, irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary
injunction. 	At the hearing, Spriestersbach argued he faces
three types of imminent, irreparable harm: 1) the risk that he
may be arrested in Hawai`i on warrants issued for, or for
offenses committed by, Thomas R. Castleberry; 2) the risk of
that type of arrest outside of Hawai`i; and 3) the knowledge
that his identity is wrongfully linked to a person who has been
convicted of violent crimes. 	Spriestersbach’s third argument is
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 9 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

10
rejected because the personal distress that he experiences is a
harm that he can be compensated for through an award of monetary
damages if he ultimately prevails on his claims against the
City, including his IIED and NIED claims. 	See Swan v.
Tanjuakio, Civ. No. 21-00052 JMS-KJM, 2021 WL 1794756, at *7 (D.
Hawai`i May 5, 2021) (“[M]onetary relief is available if damages
are proven, and ‘monetary injury is not normally considered
irreparable.’” (quoting Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v.
Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980))).
Therefore, this type of distress does not constitute irreparable
harm for purposes of the Winter analysis.
In contrast, this Court finds that a future wrongful
arrest for a warrant issued for, or an offense committed by,
Thomas R. Castleberry would violate Spriestersbach’s
constitutional rights. 	See U.S. Const. amend. IV (“The right of
the people to be secure in their persons . . . against
unreasonable . . . seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”).
Such a violation of Spriestersbach’s Fourth Amendment rights
would constitute irreparable harm. 	See Am. Trucking, 559 F.3d
at 1059 (“Unlike monetary injuries, constitutional violations
cannot be adequately remedied through damages and therefore
generally constitute irreparable harm.” (citation omitted)).
However, in order to have standing to obtain a
preliminary injunction against the City, Spriestersbach must
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 10 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

11
establish irreparable harm that is “actual and imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical” and that is “fairly traceable to
the challenged action of the defendant[.]” 	See Summers v. Earth
Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (citation omitted); see
also GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, 15 F.4th 919, 939 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“A party ‘does not have to await the consummation of threatened
injury to obtain preventive relief. 	If the injury is certainly
impending, that is enough.’” (quoting Pennsylvania v. West
Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593, 43 S. Ct. 658, 67 L. Ed. 1117
(1923))).
A. 	Threat of Arrest in Hawai`i
Spriestersbach does not currently live in the State of
Hawai`i, [Spriestersbach Decl. at ¶ 18,] nor has he presented
any evidence that he has specific plans to return to Hawai`i.
Moreover, the actions that the City has undertaken in response
to Spriestersbach’s Complaint and the instant Motion - i.e. the
active advisory in the HPD CRS and the February 18, 2022 letter
to the HCJDC - as well as the actions that resulted from the
Spriestersbach Rule 40 Case significantly mitigate the threat
that Spriestersbach will be arrested as Thomas R. Castleberry if
Spriestersbach does return to Hawai`i.
Spriestersbach argues the actions that the City has
taken are insufficient to eliminate completely the risk that he
will be wrongfully arrested as Thomas R. Castleberry in Hawai`i.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 11 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

12
However, as the party seeking the extraordinary remedy of a
preliminary injunction, Spriestersbach bears the burden of
establishing imminent, irreparable harm. 	See Winter, 555 U.S.
at 20 (listing requirements for a preliminary injunction, all of
which must be established by the movant). 	It is not the
responding party’s burden to establish the adequacy of any
attempt it makes to address the situation challenged in the
motion. 	This Court therefore finds that Spriestersbach has
failed to carry his burden of establishing that the threat of a
wrongful arrest in Hawai`i is imminent.
B. 	Threat of Arrest Outside of Hawai`i
Spriestersbach arguably faces the risk of arrest as
Thomas R. Castleberry in one or more places outside of Hawai`i,
such as the place where he is currently residing or places he
visits regularly (although Spriestersbach has not identified
these place in the Motion). 	He contends the City should be
required to eliminate that risk by correcting national databases
that link him with Thomas R. Castleberry. 	Spriestersbach
requests a preliminary injunction requiring the City to “remove
any information identifying [him] as having the alias Thomas
Castleberry or identifying Thomas Castleberry as having the
alias of Joshua Spriestersbach from all criminal databases in
which [the City] has the ability to cause such removals;
including . . . any national criminal databases, including
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 12 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

13
National Crime Information Systems (‘NCIC’).” 	See Motion at
PageID #: 186 (part of Spriestersbach’s proposed order granting
the Motion). 	Spriestersbach has not established that the City
has the ability to cause the removal of such information from
national databases. 	To the extent that the Castleberry Warrant
remains active and is accessible on a national database, it is a
bench warrant issued by a state court, and there is no evidence
that HPD or any other City office is responsible for entering
state court bench warrants into any national database.
Moreover, Spriestersbach acknowledges that the original text of
the Castleberry Warrant correctly identifies Thomas R.
Castleberry.
Spriestersbach points to handwritten notations on some
copies of the Castleberry Warrant, and he argues those notations
refer to HPD records of his arrests on the warrant, i.e., City
records that improperly connect Thomas R. Castleberry’s name
with his. 	For example, the version of the Castleberry Warrant
with a return of service date of May 11, 2017 includes a
handwritten notation to Police Report number “17174648.” 	See
Gerhardstein Decl., Exh. A-2 at PageID #: 138. 	HPD Incident
Report number 17-174648 and HPD Arrest Report number 17-174648
are reports related to Spriestersbach’s May 11, 2017 arrest on
the Castleberry Warrant. 	See id., Exh. A-8 (HPD documents
associated with Spriestersbach’s 5/11/17 arrest) at PageID
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 13 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

14
#: 168, 170. 	Spriestersbach also presents another version of
the Castleberry Warrant with a handwritten notation to Police
Report number “11-373552.” 	See id., Exh. A-5 at PageID #: 152.
HPD Incident Report number 11-373552 and HPD Arrest Report
number 11-373552 are reports related to Spriestersbach’s
October 14, 2011 arrest on the Castleberry Warrant. 	See id. at
PageID #: 148-50. 	HPD reports 17-174648 and 11-373552
intermingle Spriestersbach’s personal identifying information
with Thomas R. Castleberry’s information. 	However,
Spriestersbach has not established that any annotated version of
the Castleberry Warrant or any of the HPD reports with the
intermingled information is available on a national database,
nor has he established that the City has the ability to correct
any nationally available information. 	Absent such a showing,
Spriestersbach cannot establish that any threat of his arrest
outside of Hawai`i on warrants issued for, or offenses committed
by, Thomas R. Castleberry is fairly traceable to the City.
C. 	Ruling
This Court therefore finds that Spriestersbach has
failed to establish any threat of irreparable harm that is both
imminent and fairly traceable to the City. 	Because
Spriestersbach has failed to establish that he faces the
requisite type of irreparable harm, he is not entitled to a
preliminary injunction against the City, and it is not necessary
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 14 of 15
PageID.<pageID>

15
for this Court to address the other preliminary injunction
requirements.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Spriestersbach’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, filed January 14, 2022, is HEREBY
DENIED. 	The denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a new
motion seeking a preliminary injunction, if such a motion is
warranted by later developments in this case.
Counsel for all parties who have appeared in this case
are ORDERED to appear before the magistrate judge for an early
settlement conference addressing, in particular, voluntary
measures that can be taken to achieve the correction of records
associating Spriestersbach with Thomas R. Castleberry.
Spriestersbach’s counsel is DIRECTED to contact the magistrate
judge’s courtroom manager to initiate the scheduling of the
conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, March 24, 2022.
JOSHUA SPRIESTERSBACH VS. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL; CV 21-00456
LEK-RT; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Case 1:21-cv-00456-LEK-RT Document 93 Filed 03/24/22 Page 15 of 15
PageID.<pageID>