NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-JAN-2024
07:53 AM
Dkt. 50 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
EDMUND M. ABORDO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
CEDRIC AH SING, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS)
MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR SHAIR KIMOTO,
CCA WARDEN TODD THOMAS, MAIL ROOM CLERK FOR SCC C. ROBERTSON,
CCA UNIT MANAGER R. COOK, C/O C. HOSKINS, Defendants-Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 12-1-2207)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Edmund M. Abordo, self-represented,
(Abordo) appeals from the November 27, 2019 Judgment entered (on
temporary remand) by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
(Circuit Court).1 Judgment was entered against Abordo and
Plaintiff-Appellee Cedric Ah Sing, and in favor of Defendants-
Appellees Department of Public Safety (DPS), DPS Mainland Branch
Administrator Shari Kimoto, Warden Todd Thomas, Mail Room Clerk
C. Robertson, Correctional Officer C. Hoskins, and Unit Manager
1
The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
R. Cook (collectively, Defendants). Abordo also appears to
challenge: (1) the December 21, 2018 Order of Dismissal Without
Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute (Dismissal Order); and (2) the
May 13, 2019 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Reinstate the
Plaintiff's Case Per the Order of the Court Dismissing Without
Prejudice Non-Hearing Motion (Order Denying Reinstatement).
Abordo does not state points of error in compliance
with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4), instead
raising several questions, some of which cannot be discerned as
alleging error.2 It appears that Abordo contends that: (1) the
Circuit Court abused its discretion in entering the Dismissal
Order because the Circuit Court did not serve the Defendants with
Abordo's complaint; and (2) the Circuit Court abused its
discretion in entering the Order Denying Reinstatement because
the order was entered in retaliation for Abordo's filing of a
petition for writ of mandamus.
Upon careful review of the record and the submissions
of the parties, and having given due consideration to the
arguments advanced and the issues raised by Abordo, we resolve
Abordo's appeal as follows:
(1) Abordo contends, in essence, that the Circuit
Court abused its discretion in dismissing Abordo's complaint
without prejudice for lack of prosecution (more than six years
after the complaint was filed) because the Circuit Court was
2
The Hawai#i Supreme Court has held that pleadings prepared by
self-represented litigants should be interpreted liberally, and such parties
should not be automatically foreclosed from appellate review because they fail
to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai #i 368, 381, 465 P.3d
815, 828 (2020). Therefore, we address Abordo's arguments to the extent we
can discern them.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
required to serve the complaint on the Defendants pursuant to
Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40(d) and failed to
do so.3 This argument is without merit.
HRPP Rule 40(c)(3) states:
(3) SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION. If a post-conviction
petition alleges neither illegality of judgment nor
illegality of post-conviction "custody" or "restraint" but
instead alleges a cause of action based on a civil rights
statute or other separate cause of action, the court shall
treat the pleading as a civil complaint not governed by this
rule. However, where a petition seeks relief of the nature
provided by this rule and simultaneously pleads a separate
claim or claims under a civil rights statute or other
separate cause of action, the latter claim or claims shall
be ordered transferred by the court for disposition under
the civil rules.
Here, the complaint does not allege an illegal judgment
or illegal "post-conviction 'custody' or 'restraint,'" but rather
asserted that Abordo and Ah Sing were entitled to compensatory
and punitive damages from Defendants for the illegal seizure of
Abordo and Ah Sing's legal mail. Accordingly, although the
complaint nominally referenced HRPP Rule 40, pursuant to HRPP
Rule 40(c)(3), the Circuit Court properly disposed of the case
under the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2) Abordo contends that the Circuit Court's denial of
his motion to reinstate the civil case against Defendants was a
vindictive act due to Abordo's filing of a petition for writ of
3
HRPP Rule 40(d) provides:
(d) Response. The State of Hawai#i shall be named as
the respondent in the petition, and the petitioner shall
serve the petition on the respondent by delivering a filed
copy thereof to the prosecutor. Service may be made by the
attorney for the petitioner, or the petitioner in a pro se
case. If it appears that the petitioner is unable to effect
prompt service of a filed copy of the petition or other
pleading under this rule, the court shall direct court staff
to effect service on behalf of the petitioner.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
mandamus against the Circuit Court. Abordo offers no support for
this bare allegation, and we find none.
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's November 27,
2019 Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 16, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Edmund M. Abordo,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
4