Howerton v. GDRT

Opinion

FILED l 2920 JUL et pg-g Z DO 2

3 sup ine CGURT n

F ,A r 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

JEFFREY HOWERTON, 7 SPECIAL PROCEEDING NO. SP0055-20 8 Petitioner,

v. DECISION AND ORDER 9

10 GUAM DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION, GUAM OFFICE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, & DOES 1-100 12 Respondents. 13

15 Introduction

16 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Pro Tempore Jonathan R. Quan on April 2, 17 2020, upon Jeffrey Howerton's pro sh Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Pursuant to 7 GCA §31211, 18 oral argument was not scheduled and the case was heard solely on the Petition. After reviewing 19

20 the allegations in the Petition, as well as applicable statutes and case law, the Court hereby issues

21 the following Decision and Order DENYING the Petition.

22 Background 23 The Petitioner appears to be a resident of Chula Vista, California and he may be 24 involuntarily confined.1 The large majority of the Petition develops the claim that the Petitioner 25

27 1 Petitioner avers he is "trapped in a truly shockingly abusive home environment in Chufa Vista where they not only 28 monitor the situation but where they have bribed relatives isolating and severely torturing me in an actual police state from the CA DOJ, FBI, Chula Vista PD." Petition (Apr. 2, 2020) at 23 . Decision and Order SP0055-20, Jejfey Howerton v. Guam Department of Revenue and Taxation, et al.

1 is the target of a global conspiracy perpetrated by, inter alia, his family members, former college

2 classmates and their families, Brown University, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the

3 Israeli national intelligence agency. The Petition alleges that these people and institutions have

4 perpetrated physical, sexual, and psychological torture upon the Petitioner. However, these

5 alleged perpetrators are not parties in this proceeding, and the Respondent agencies are not accused

6 of perpetrating the alleged torture. Accordingly, the allegations against these non-parties are no

7 relevant to this proceeding and will not be addressed further.

8 The Respondents in this proceeding are two agencies: the Guam Department of Revenu

9 and Taxation ("DRT") and the Guam Office of Public Accountability ("OPA"). The Petitio

10 claims that the Respondent agencies failed to respond to the Petitioner's e-mail inquiries about hi

11 pending complaints. The Petitioner claims that he filed a complaint with DRT in December 20 l

12 regarding three Guam banks ANZ Gu a m, Ba nk of Ha wa ii, a nd Ba r lk of Gu a m-t ha t Ar

13 allegedly connected to "IP theft and financial crime." Petition (Apr. 2, 2020) at 2-3. The Petition

14 also claims that he filed one or more complaints with OPA in March 2020 regarding the "Unifie e

15 Courts", the Government of Guam, DRT, the Guam Attorney General's Office, and OPA itself

16 Id at 4. Petitioner claims that the agencies either failed to respond to his e-mails or response

17 with e-mails that "appeared to be hijacked" Id at 3-4. The Petitioner therefore filed this action i

18 to "request intervention to assure my complaints and issues [are] handled appropriately." Id at 5

19 Discussion

20 To establish a claim for mandamus relief, the petitioner must demonstrate (1) a clear s

21 present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and (2) a clear, present an l

22 beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. Bank of Guam v. Reify, 200

23 Guam 14 ii 13. The Petition satisfies neither prong of this test.

24 Page 2 of 4 Decision and Order SP0055-20, Je]j*?'ey Howerton v. Guam Department ofRevenue and Taxation, et al.

1 The Court is mindful of Petitioner's pro Se status and that a pro Se litigant deserves some

2 deference in his litigation efforts. McGhee v. McGhee, 2008 Guam 17 qt 11. However, the Court

3 cannot ignore the fact that the Petition fails to assert that any legal duty exists on the Respondents

4 or that the Respondents have violated that duty. The Petition is wholly devoid of citation to Guam

5 law, or any other doctrine, that would impose such a duty on the Respondent agencies. The Petition

6 simply asks the Court to "assure that the Petitioner's complaints are handled appropriately"

7 Petition at 5, but the Petition provides no explanation of how the prior handling of the complaint

8 was legally "inappropriate" or what "appropriate" handling would entail.

9 As the Guam Supreme Court has said, "it is not sufficient for a party simply to announce

10 a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the bast

11 for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either

12 to sustain or reject his position." Lamb v. Hojfinan, 2008 Guam 2 11 35. Here, the Court i

13 presented with a Petition that fails to allege that the Respondents owed the Petitioner a legal duty

14 that the Respondents violated that legal duty, or that the Petitioner has a right in the performance

15 of that legal duty. The Court cannot conduct a meaningful legal analysis of Petitioner's claim an

16 must therefore deny the Petition. See Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist., 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 36

17 52-53 (Cal. App. 5d 2010) (where "no legal basis was presented" to support allegations of a clew

18 and present duty of an administrative body, the failure to provide such a basis was fatal to a cars I

19 of action for a writ of mandate).

20 Furthermore, the allegations against the Respondent agencies are not sufficient to warren

21 mandamus relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that should be employed only in extreme I

22 situations. AB. Won Pat Guam 1nt'l Airport Auth. v. Moylan, 2005 Guam 5 fl 10. The Court i II

23 not convinced that an agency's failure to respond to e-mails would ever constitute an "extreme Ir

24 Page 3 of 4 Decision and Order SP0055-20, Jejiey Howerton v. Guam Department of Revenueand Taxation, et al.

1 situation." However, the Court is particularly disinclined to adopt such a view here because the

2 Respondents' alleged failure to respond to Petitioner's e-mails coincided with the COVID-19

3 pandemic and the associated partial government shutdown. Accordingly, even if the Petition had

4 established a cognizable claim, the Court would still deny the Petition.

5 Conclusion

6 The Petition fails to present a claim for the Court to analyze. The Petition also fails t 0

7 establish that its subject matter constitutes an "extreme situation" worthy of the extraordina

8 remedy of mandamus relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petition for Writ of Mandamus

10 IT IS SO ORDERED this élvVk of July, 2020. 11

13 ( / . ONORAB L M re ) JONATHA J age Pro Tempore, Superi //W . QUAN Court of Guam J

24 Page 4 of 4