Indeed, Defendants State of Hawai‘i and Governor Abercrombie cogentlyand timely answered the Complaint. And throughout the remainder of theinstant motion, these Defendants, themselves, were capable of attributing(what they now aver are) infirmities to the Complaint, often with specificparagraph citations;2.
Mr. Baker challenges a comprehensive statutory scheme and the relatedactions of government officials that have violated Mr. Baker’sconstitutional rights in numerous ways. Mr. Baker has plainly averredthat the statutes at issue are unconstitutional and identified theconstitutional rights those statutes/actions violate and how so. Thesweeping nature of the statutory scheme and the number of constitutionalrights affected necessitate the Complaint’s length; and3.
It is fair to assume that in (almost) every case, Defendants would takeissue with Plaintiff’s recitation of facts and Plaintiff’s contention of entitlement to relief. The only difference between this and a tort case isthat Plaintiff has necessarily pled that various statutes are unconstitutional. These allegations are not argumentative or conclusive. To so hold wouldcripple any Plaintiff’s ability to challenge unconstitutional statutes orgovernment officials’ actions.Each fact alleged in a complaint is necessarily defined by the Plaintiff, whois required to “show that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule8(a)(2). In this case, Mr. Baker has done so. Yet, in order to assert his claims, Mr.Baker must challenge the entirety of a sweeping statutory scheme that, Mr. Bakerbelieves, violates a number of constitutional rights. In order for those claims to bepreserved, Mr. Baker must of course raise them in his Complaint. And, it is thisnecessity that occasions the length of the Complaint. Defendants unfairlycharacterize the Complaint as prolix or repetitive in nature.It is difficult to identify the crux of the Defendants’ grievance against theComplaint. In one sentence, they seem to argue that Mr. Baker should have,
Case 1:11-cv-00528-ACK -KSC Document 38 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:352