Hawkes v. Katayama et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
BEAU HAWKES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GREGG K. KATAYAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 25-00455 MWJS-WRP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
On March 11, 2026, Plaintiff Beau Hawkes filed an Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The motion alleges that on March 10, 2026, a joint
task force of law enforcement agencies, including the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and
Defendant Maui Police Department (MPD), raided Hawkes' residence and seized
inventory connected with his "High Hawaii" business.
Hawkes asserts that the seized products are "hemp-derived THC products that
are fully compliant with federal law." Dkt. No. 21, at PageID.184. And he claims that
law enforcement had knowledge of this exculpatory information both before and after
the search. Although he acknowledges that the seizures were undertaken pursuant to a
search warrant, he nonetheless alleges that "this operation was initiated by the MPD in
Case 1:25-cv-00455-MWJS-WRP Document 22 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

2
direct retaliation for his ongoing federal litigation," and that "[u]pon information and
belief, the MPD intentionally disseminated misleading claims to the DEA, falsely
characterizing Plaintiff's legal business as an 'illegal THC delivery business' to procure a
search warrant under pretext." Id. at PageID.185. He asks the court to provide the
following relief: "[(1)] Issue a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
enjoining Defendants, their agents and all persons acting in concert with them, from
further warrantless searches, seizures, or harassment of Plaintiff and the High Hawaii
brand; [(2)] order a Mandatory Injunction requiring the [MPD] to immediately
coordinate with the DEA and Homeland Security for the return of all property seized
on March 10, 2026; [and] [(3)] order Defendants to Issue a Letter of Correction to the
DEA and all involved federal agencies, affirmatively stating that the seized products are
federally compliant hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill and were accompanied by valid
COAs at the time of seizure." Id. at PageID.192.
The motion for a TRO must be denied. As alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, Dkt. No. 16, this case involves the alleged wrongful arrest of Hawkes by
MPD in September 2023. It asserts four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged
violations of Hawkes' constitutional rights arising out of that arrest, and one claim for
the violation of Hawkes' "right to reputation." Dkt. No. 16, at PageID.101-08. The TRO
motion, by contrast, is wholly unrelated to the claims in Hawkes' operative complaint.
Aside from Hawkes' assertion that the raid and seizures were done in "retaliation" for
Case 1:25-cv-00455-MWJS-WRP Document 22 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

3
his pursuit of the underlying lawsuit, none of the allegations in the TRO motion has any
connection to the 2023 arrest or the legal claims in the complaint.
In order for a TRO to issue, "there must be a relationship between the injury
claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying
complaint." Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir.
2015). That relationship "is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would
grant relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally." Id. (cleaned
up). But "absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the
relief requested." Id.
Here, there is not a sufficient relationship between the conduct asserted in the
underlying complaint and the injury claimed in Hawkes' TRO motion. The
constitutional violations stemming from allegedly inadequate police investigation of a
violent altercation and alleged robbery that occurred in 2023 have no apparent
relationship to the seizure of Hawkes' property by federal law enforcement in 2026. The
only possible connection is the allegedly retaliatory nature of the recent seizure, which
is not enough to establish a nexus sufficient to sustain a TRO. See id. (adopting the rule
of Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 1994), which denied a "motion for
injunctive relief based on retaliation" on the basis that the allegations were "entirely
different and separate from the underlying conduct challenged in the § 1983 action").
And the nature of the relief sought by the TRO—which would require MPD to refrain
Case 1:25-cv-00455-MWJS-WRP Document 22 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

4
from conducting future searches of Hawkes and High Hawaii and to take affirmative
action in connection with MPD's law enforcement partners—is altogether different from
the relief sought by the complaint.
Accordingly, because Hawkes' TRO motion does not contain a sufficient nexus to
the underlying complaint, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. No. 21,
is DENIED. See, e.g., Kulik v. United States, Civ. No. 18-00306, 2018 WL 3764082, at *3-4
(D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2018); King v. Jaurequi, No. CV 18-9649, 2019 WL 6898958, at *2 (C.D.
Cal. Aug. 15, 2019).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 12, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Civil No. 25-00455 MWJS-WRP; Beau Hawkes v. Gregg K. Katayama, et al.; ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
/s/ Micah W.J. Smith
Micah W.J. Smith
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00455-MWJS-WRP Document 22 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>