IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
vs.
MICHAEL F. BRODERICK, Administrative Director of the Courts,
the Judiciary, State of Hawaii; STATE OF HAWAII;
Defendants-Appellees,
and
J. DOES 1-5, Defendants
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.)
Plaintiff-appellant Lewis Poe appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Honorable Gail Nakatani presiding, entered pursuant to an order dismissing Poe's complaint on the grounds that his claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Poe's complaint sought, inter alia, a declaration that Act 305, 1996 Sess. Laws at 959, as amended by Act 121, 1998 Haw. Sess. Laws at 467, was unconstitutional and an injunction against the enforcement of the act. On appeal, Poe argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his complaint because the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments made and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve defendant-appellant's argument as follows: because Poe's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief request prospective relief against state officials, the circuit court erred in ruling that they were barred by the sovereign immunity doctrine; see Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawai`i 474, 481, 918 P.2d 1130, 1137 (1996). However, the court reached the correct result in dismissing the case insofar as: 1) the fees imposed by Act 305 are rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of providing additional funds for indigent legal services and promoting equal access to government, see Act 305, supra, at § 1, at 959-60, and, therefore, Act 305 does not violate equal protection; 2) because the fees are a reasonable procedural requirement for triggering the right to adjudication, see Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982), and may be waived by the courts where appropriate, see Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 607-3 (1993), they do not constitute an unconstitutional taking; and 3) Poe's argument that Act 305 should be declared unconstitutional because the financial burdens of indigent legal assistance should be spread among the general public and because the program is ineffective raises nonjusticiable political questions; see Trustees of Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Yamasaki, 69 Haw. 154, 169-70, 737 P.2d 446, 455 (1987).
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 23, 2001.
On the brief:
Lewis W. Poe,
plaintiff-appellant
pro se