THE District Court for the NMI has rejected the request of Zaji Zajradhara to disqualify Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona from handling the discrimination lawsuit he filed against PC Bargain.
Zajradhara, representing himself, has filed two recusal motions against the judge.
Zajradhara filed an initial motion on Sept. 19, 2022, arguing that Judge Manglona should recuse herself because “she permits non-U.S. citizens to have access to the courts, and her sentencing dispositions do not deter immigration offenders.”
Zajradhara also filed a letter from the Office of the Circuit Executive indicating that it had received a complaint of judicial misconduct filed by Zajradhara against Judge Manglona.
A second motion to recuse was filed on Oct. 18, 2022, reiterating the same arguments and making an additional argument that the court “is purposely ‘slow-walking’ and foot dragging” his case because Zajradhara filed a new case against the undersigned and “her families’ friends David Atalig, Kiyoshi Cody, and others.”
“This shows obvious MISCONDUCT ON HER PART,” Zajradhara claimed.
He also alleged that the judge “allows all manner of non-American citizens, Russians, in the CNMI illegally, Chinese, Filipinos who are illegally within the borders of America to have direct access to the court,” and “knows full well the rampant violations of the CW-1 visa policies; yet she does nothing to issue penalties and or sentences in order to deter further violations of America’s immigration/employment laws.”
In her order, Judge Manglona denied the allegation that her court is “slow walking” or “foot dragging” this matter because of an alleged relationship with David Atalig and Kiyoshi Cody.
“First, there is no indication that Atalig or Cody are involved in this civil action. Additionally, the undersigned need not recuse herself based on any kin-relationship under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5) because she does not have a third-degree relationship with either Atalig or Cody. And finally, Zajradhara’s claim that the undersigned may be personally biased or prejudiced towards him because of cases filed against her and her ‘families’ friends’ is unavailing.”
Judge Manglona cited Canon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which states:
“A judge is not automatically disqualified from participating in other, unrelated cases involving the same litigant, whether they are filed before or after the complaint in which the judge is a defendant. Judicial immunity usually will be a complete defense against a new complaint of this nature, and the court in which the complaint is filed likely will dismiss it as frivolous. In such circumstances, the mere fact that a litigant has filed a new frivolous complaint against a judge based on the judge’s official actions will not disqualify the judge from continuing to preside over the earlier, unrelated matter brought by the same litigant.”
According to the judge, “Zajradhara further implies the undersigned is biased because she allows non-U.S. citizens access to the judicial branch. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that non-U.S. citizens are protected under the U.S. Constitution.”
For instance, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
As such, the Supreme Court has held that “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” the judge said.
“Here, Zajradhara fails to identify any constitutional provision or law that precludes this court from giving non-U.S. citizens access to the judiciary,” the judge added.
“The undersigned is not biased against Zajradhara merely by permitting non-U.S. citizens access to the court system. This is an unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice, and no reasonable person would conclude the undersigned’s impartiality would be questioned because non-U.S. citizens have access to the judiciary. Thus, the Court rejects Zajradhara’s argument that the undersigned need recuse herself for providing court access to non-U.S. citizens.”
Furthermore, the judge added, “any possible argument that the court is biased in favor of non-U.S. citizens because it has failed to prosecute immigration violations is meritless.”
“It is a fundamental tenet of this country’s democratic republic form of government that the legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch executes said laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws,” Judge Manglona said.
“[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case,” she added.
“Judicial supervision of these decisions is limited by the separation of powers and is guided by the recognition that the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review,” the judge said.
“It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to faithfully execute immigration policy as adopted by Congress,” she added.
“To the extent that Zajradhara argues the court should prosecute violations of immigration law, the court lacks the power to do so. Finally, arguments that the undersigned is biased as reflected in her sentencing of defendants adjudged guilty of immigration offenses are equally meritless,” the judge said.
“Zajradhara may argue that the undersigned’s sentencing decisions reflect bias in favor of non-U.S. citizens. However, given the vast discretion the court has, this is an unsubstantiated allegation of bias, and the court will deny recusal on this basis,” she added.
Judge Manglona likewise dismissed without prejudice Zajradhara’s second amended complaint against PC Bargain “because there were fewer facts asserted.”
As the court stated previously, “while Zajradhara does belong to a racial minority, and thus a protected class thereby meeting the first element of racial discrimination under §1981, there is nothing in his second amended complaint to suggest that he is qualified for the jobs applied to or that another individual who was in fact hired was not qualified.”
Taking Zajradhara’s facts as true, the judge said, “the only information the court has regarding his qualifications include conclusory statements that he has a ‘distinguished career in various industries’ and that he was ‘eminently qualified,’ for the job.”
Nevertheless, the court gave Zajradhara another chance to correct the deficiencies identified by the order.
Judge Manglona directed Zajradhara to file a third amended complaint on or before April 30, 2023.
Zajradhara has filed several lawsuits against various employers, alleging “discrimination.”
Zaji Zajradhara
