An internal investigation is ongoing nearly five months after Honolulu police allegedly hit a man with a car before beating him and his son during a New Year’s Day manhunt and shootouts with an attempted murder suspect.

Vaokehekehe Mataele, 49, was originally identified by police as a suspect in the case.

On Jan. 1 at 4:11 p.m., Mataele, 49, and his son, Tevita Cadiente, 25, both residents of a condominium near Varsity Place and University Avenue, heard officers pursuing Sidney Tafokitau, 44, and went outside to watch.

Tafokitau was shot and killed by police after he opened fire with an assault rifle and seriously wounded two officers on University Avenue.

“No officers have been placed on restricted duty at this time. The administrative review of the incident is underway and will include officers’ actions prior to and following the shooting,” Michelle Yu, HPD spokesperson, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney investigates all officer-involved shootings.

“The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney does not discuss the existence of or status of any investigations,” Brooks Baehr, DPA spokesperson, told the Star-Advertiser.

The father and son filed a lawsuit against the city Jan. 16, accusing officers of excessive force, violating their constitutional rights and accusing HPD of poorly training officers.

The family is being represented by Michael D. Rudy and his team. Rudy scheduled a news conference about the case for May 2.

City attorneys have twice moved to dismiss the federal civil complaint, on Feb. 16 and March 14.

On Feb. 19, U.S. District Judge Micah W.J. Smith issued an order granting some of the city’s request to dismiss civil claims stemming from the incident, while denying others.

On April 17 city attorneys moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed March 14, arguing that plaintiffs failed to “state a claim for municipal liability under (federal statute) or respondent superior liability at state law.”

“This Court agrees that the complaint does not plead a claim of municipal liability, but it concludes that plaintiffs have adequately pled a respondent superior claim,” wrote Smith.

Before considering whether liability can be attached to the city, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a (federal) right,” wrote Smith.

Accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true, Cadiente, at least, has suffered such a deprivation, Smith continued.

Mataele and Cadiente, who are Tongan like Tafokitau and knew him from church, jogged up University Ave. at about 4:14 p.m. Jan. 1, after hearing gunshots, to try to prevent further bloodshed, according to the complaint.

Cadiente tried to call Tafokitau twice, within the same minute, “to encourage Mr. Tafokitau to safely surrender,” according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that, before Cadiente and Mataele made it to the overpass, an “unmarked white Honda pulled up in front of them, cutting off their path.”

“Two plain clothes officers emerged, pointing firearms at the unarmed father and son, who were in slippers and barefoot, Mr. Cadiente carrying only a cell phone and Mr. Mataele carrying nothing at all. The lawsuit describes how, as the father and son stood unarmed with their hands up, shocked and confused, a large black police van climbed the curb and ran Mr. Cadiente into a chain-link fence,” according to the complaint. “With the fence absorbing the vehicle’s impact, Mr. Cadiente’s body slid under the police van. The lawsuit alleges that officers pulled Mr. Cadiente out from under the van, then began viciously beating him in the head, approximately 10-12 officers in turn using both their hands and the blunt ends of their weapons.”

Cadiente suffered a facial fracture, a traumatic subconjunctival hemorrhage, a concussion, orthopedic knee injuries, cognitive impairment including memory loss and confusion, and vision loss, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint also alleges that Mataele “shouted to the officers that he and his son were not involved in the chase, but that officers ignored his words and continued beating Mr. Cadiente for multiple minutes on end.”

Mataele was allegedly held down and handcuffed, with his head forced onto the pavement.

“Among other things, the Fourth Amendment affords citizens the right to be free from excessive force when being arrested. …The complaint sufficiently alleges that Cadiente was deprived of that right,” Smith wrote. “In particular, the complaint alleges that after he had been slammed by the vehicle, Cadiente was nonresistant and semiconscious … meaning that he could no longer have reasonably been perceived as posing any active threat.”

Yet up to a “dozen officers bludgeoned Cadiente’s head with their hands and the blunt ends of their weapons,” inflicting serious injuries.

The alleged beating of Cadiente for several minutes “as he lay helpless and semiconscious was violent, gratuitous, and objectively unreasonable.”

“The City does not dispute that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged torturous conduct on behalf of the state police officers, nor does the City dispute that the officers were acting within the scope of their authority when they arrested Cadiente. Instead, the City claims that Plaintiffs have failed to ‘defeat the qualified or conditional privilege’ afforded to nonjudicial government employees under Hawaii law,” wrote Smith. “The Court disagrees. Nonjudicial government officers — and, by extension, their municipal employers — benefit from a qualified privilege: they may only be held liable in tort if they were ‘motivated by malice and not by an otherwise proper purpose.’… The Court has little difficulty concluding that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the complaint sufficiently alleges malice on behalf of the officers.”

Scott Humber, Mayor Rick Blangiardi’s communications director, told the Star-Advertiser in a statement:

“The Court reviewed the parties’ briefs and heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ second and third iterations of their Complaint. The Court has allowed Plaintiffs another opportunity to amend the Complaint so it may comply with Federal Court’s pleading standards. The City respects the Court’s decision and awaits Plaintiffs’ fourth draft of the Complaint.”