Vol. 35 No.21
       ©2007 Marianas Variety
Friday, April 13, 2007 www.mvariety.com
Serving the CNMI for 35 years
 

© 2007 Marianas Variety
Published by Younis Art Studio Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Email :
mvariety@vzpacifica.net
Inmate revives case against 33 GovGuam officials

By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

AN INMATE appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit he filed against 33 prison and parole officials. The District Court of Guam issued new summonses to the GovGuam officials.
Judge Alex Munson dismissed the case filed by Alexander Kitano on March 12, saying the plaintiff failed to state a claim in his complaint.
A week after the decision, Kitano filed a motion for reconsideration, saying that although he failed to state a claim, that doesn’t mean that the case doesn’t have merit against 33 past and former GovGuam officials.
On Tuesday, the District Court of Guam issued summonses to Jesus Rivera, former board member of the Guam Territorial Parole Board and Angel Sablan, former director of the Department of Corrections.
Kitano’s original complaint included Gov. Felix P. Camacho, former Gov. Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Department of Corrections director Robert Camacho, Sen. Frank Ishizaki, R-Yona, who was sued in his capacity as former police chief, Guam Territorial Parole Board former chairman Jose Salas, chairman Soledad Chargualaf, members Connie Duenas, Francisco Marion, Edward Flores, Francisca Santos, Eustaquio Punzalan and several John Does.
He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by transferring him off-island, by failing to timely consider him for parole, and by failing to provide him with due process at his parole hearing by not securing his presence at the hearing itself, resulting in the denial of his parole.
The inmate asked for a jury trial to compel incumbent and past government officials to perform their duties as stated in the U.S. Constitution.
The defendants’ lawyer, Deputy Attorney General William Bischoff, earlier said there’s no clear constitutional right that exists for an inmate housed off-island to be transported to Guam for a personal appearance at parole hearings.
Bischoff said the defendants have no clear affirmative obligation to pay for the travel expenses of the plaintiff and the escorts that would be necessary for the exercise of that right, if it does exist.