By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

AN INMATE who sued 33 past and present government of Guam officials says these officials’ failure to give him a chance to work on his parole is not protected by qualified immunity.
Alexander Kitano responded to the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants’ lawyer, Assistant Attorney General William Bischoff.
The 33 officials, including 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, Jesus Rivera, Angel Sablan and several John Does.
In a motion submitted by Bischoff, GovGuam officials argued that they have qualified immunity from all claims against them in their individual capacities.
The defendants 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.
The defense lawyer earlier said that Kitano is a Guam prisoner serving a life sentence for the murder of a Guam prison guard and his stay in a federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania is for security reason.
The GovGuam officials noted that Kitano has been eligible for parole for the last three or four years, but because he was not physically present during the parole hearings, his parole was denied.
The defense stated that Kitano did not complain about not being permitted to submit documentary evidence, which can be done without being physically present at his parole hearings.
The GovGuam officials said they are willing to accommodate Kitano’s appearing by telephone or by video conferencing, if available, for his parole hearings.
He stated in his reply that the defendants’ proposition fails on a constitutional level because whether they deny an affirmative obligation as to who actually pays for the plaintiff’s travel and whether they have the fiscal authority in facilitating his exercise clearly established his case.
“This case presents government misconduct so egregious that any reasonable official would have known that it violates the Constitution, regardless of preexisting case law,” Kitano said as he asks the court to deny the motion of the GovGuam officials to dismiss the case.
Kitano asks for a jury trial on his complaint to compel incumbent and past government officials to perform their duties as stated in the U.S. Constitution.