CHIEF Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI found the argument of the CNMI Office of the Attorney General failing and unpersuasive in its objection to Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy’s oversight of the settlement proceedings in the lawsuit of Reynaldo A. Manila, an inmate who sued officials of the Department of Corrections for federal rights violations.
Manila was serving a 60-year prison sentence for the death of his six-month-old goddaughter in 2000 when he sued Corrections and its officials. He has returned to the Philippines after he was paroled in January 2021.
Manila’s attorneys, Bruce L. Berline and William M. Fitzgerald, pointed out a potential conflict of interest on the part of the defendants’ lawyers, Assistant Attorneys General Jose P. Mafnas Jr. and Leslie A. Healer.
The AG’s office has indicated that CNMI law precluded the indemnification of CNMI-government employees if sued in their personal capacity.
Judge Manglona said the question became whether — in view of the Office of the AG’s interpretation of CNMI law — the AAGs could represent defendants as zealous advocates when those AAGs will not advocate for the CNMI to indemnify their clients.
On Feb. 12, Magistrate Judge Kennedy issued an order directing the parties to address the potential conflict of interest in the AAG’s representation of defendants.
Subsequently, the AG’s office, represented by its civil division chief and chief solicitor, John P. Lowrey and J. Robert Glass Jr., filed a limited appearance for the purpose of addressing the conflict issue with the court.
In effect, the AAGs would continue to represent the defendants in their personal capacities, and the Office of the AG would represent the CNMI government in enforcing the Office of the AG’s interpretation of the CNMI’s indemnification laws.
Magistrate Judge Kennedy then held a status conference where she noted that the AG’s office would need to file a formal motion to intervene or a motion to appear as amicus curiae because the CNMI was not formally a party in the lawsuit.
The AG’s office did not file a motion to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae but filed a motion for limited appearance.
It objects to Magistrate Judge Kennedy’s oversight of these settlement proceedings for two reasons: (1) She was never designated to preside over a conflict of interest matter, and (2) the parties did not consent to her presiding over such matters.
The AG’s office states that a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction is “strictly circumscribed by the requirement that they be designated by the district court to exercise jurisdiction over a matter and that the parties consent to the exercise of that jurisdiction.”
But according to Judge Manglona, a magistrate judge may properly consider and determine a motion to disqualify brought before her.
“Although at the time Judge Kennedy directed the AAG’s to brief the potential conflict of interest issue even though no motion to disqualify had been submitted, the court perceives her efforts as an attempt to avoid an ethical violation by the AAGs,” Judge Manglona said.
Therefore, she added, the court treats Manila’s oral motion to disqualify based on the alleged conflict of interest in the AAGs’ representation of the defendants as a pretrial non-dispositive matter.
Judge Manglona said the Office of the AG’s arguments that “Judge Kennedy’s appointment needed to be specifically designated are unpersuasive. Judge Kennedy acted within her scope of authority to inquire into and attempt to resolve the potential conflict of interest issue of defendants’ attorneys that arose during the settlement conferences.”
To properly resolve the legal issues underlying the conflict of interest allegation made by the plaintiff’s attorneys, Judge Manglona ordered that the Office of the AG’s limited appearance filings be converted to a motion to intervene on behalf of the CNMI pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Manila’s attorneys are instructed to file a motion to disqualify the AG’s office and/or the AAG’s from representing defendants by May 11, 2021.
The AG’s office and the AAG’s response is due on May 25, 2021, and the plaintiff’s reply by June 1, 2021.
The court also scheduled a hearing for July 1 at 1:30 p.m.
Manila, in his lawsuit, named then-Corrections Commissioner Robert Guerrero and Corrections officials Jose K. Pangelinan and Georgia M. Cabrera as defendants.
Manila said the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. “They purposely delayed my medical treatment although they knew that further delay will lead to total irreversible blindness,” he alleged.
Manila said the defendants knew that he needed medical treatment (retinal surgery) “and yet they worked on a hearing for commutation of his sentence so that he could be deported…to the Philippines and [Corrections would] not have to provide him medical care.”
In January 2019 Judge Manglona dismissed Corrections and its officials from the lawsuit stating that “the Commonwealth and any official capacity defendants are immune from suit for damages under Section 1983.”
But the judge also allowed Manila to amend his lawsuit, and ordered him to provide more information on whether he was suing the officials in their individual capacities.
Manila then filed his third amended complaint against Corrections and its officials.
