Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-16-2022
Case Style:
LKR, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al.
Case Number: 1:17-cv-00143-JAO
Judge: Jill A. Otake
Court: United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Honolulu County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Honolulu Civil Rights Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Skyler G. Cruz, Marie Manuele Gavigan
Description: Honolulu, Hawaii civil rights lawyer represented multiple Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants claiming that they were all sexually assaulted by by guards at a women's prison.
The Plaintiff's sought $7.5 million in damages from the State which admitted that the sexual assaults happened.
The suit alleged that four adult correctional officers -- Chavon Freitas, Taofi Magalei Jr., Brent Baumann and Gauta Vaa -- sexually assaulted the women at least 53 times between 2013 and 2016. The guards were accused of forcing the inmates to have sex with them, oftentimes giving them contraband such as snacks, access to cell phones and even drugs as rewards.
The Plaintiffs claimed that the State did not do enough to protect them from the guards.
Outcome: Defendants' verdict.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Defendant's Attorney: Skyler G. Cruz, Marie Manuele Gavigan
Description: Honolulu, Hawaii civil rights lawyer represented multiple Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants claiming that they were all sexually assaulted by by guards at a women's prison.
The Plaintiff's sought $7.5 million in damages from the State which admitted that the sexual assaults happened.
The suit alleged that four adult correctional officers -- Chavon Freitas, Taofi Magalei Jr., Brent Baumann and Gauta Vaa -- sexually assaulted the women at least 53 times between 2013 and 2016. The guards were accused of forcing the inmates to have sex with them, oftentimes giving them contraband such as snacks, access to cell phones and even drugs as rewards.
The Plaintiffs claimed that the State did not do enough to protect them from the guards.
Outcome: Defendants' verdict.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: