;*; ;:r Sc&:j COUR
j j 3 4 3
5 7 PETER JOHN T. RIOS, JR. ) CIVIL CASE NO. CV 1045-17 $ (FEDERAL DETAINEE), ) ) 9 PLAINTIfF, ) 10 ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER RE: 11 ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ALBERTO “TONY” LAMORENA (OFFICIAL ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12 CAPACITY) DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, ) 13 ) 14 DEFENDANT. ) 15 Introduction 16 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on October 8, 2018, pursuant to 17 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Peter John T. Rios, Jr. appears pro Se. 1$ Defendant Alberto “Tony” Lamorena, in his capacity as Director of the Guam Department of 19 Corrections (“DOC”), is represented by Assistant Attorney General Monty R. May. Having 20 reviewed the pleadings, for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES 21 IN PART, and RESERVES IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court 22 also DISMISSES Plaintiffs third and fourth causes of action. 23 Background 24 This matter comes before the Court as Sunshine Act dispute between Plaintiff, a former 25 federal detainee, and Defendant, the director of a Government of Guam agency. On May 30, 26 2017, Plaintiff used the Department of Correction’s administrative grievance form system to 27 submit a request for information pursuant to the Sunshine Reform Act of 1999 (“Sunshine Act”). 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Atberto ‘Tony” Lainorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page 1 of 12 Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Sunshine Act request on June 7, 2017, and provided all 1 documents deemed responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Defendant withheld documents deemed 2 either unresponsive or covered under a Sunshine Act exemption.
On October 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Complaint seeking the production of informational reports filed by himself and eight other federal detainees, medical reports of other detainees, and
6 staff reports. Defendant filed his Answer on February 1, 201$. On September 4, 2018, Defendant filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief to Defendant’s
8 Motion. On October 8, 2018, without a hearing, the Court took this matter under advisement.
9 Discussion 10 Defendant seeks summary judgment upon all four aspects of Plaintiff’s claims in his 11 Complaint. Plaintiff requests that (1) the Court order production of certain documents pursuant to 12 the Sunshine Act; (2) for the Court to sanction Defendant for his refusal to produce the requested 13 documents; (3) for the Court to create a position of FOIA Officer within the Department of 14 Corrections; and (4) the Court find and award damages for infliction of emotional distress caused 15 by Defendant. The Court, first, will examine the standards for reviewing a motion for summary 16 judgment. The Court will, then, apply the summary judgment standards upon all four of 17 Plaintiff’s claims. 1$ A. Summary Judgment Standards 19 Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 20 and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as 21 to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Guam 22 R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Cetotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). Rule 56(c) of the Guam 23 Rules of Civil Procedure further mandates summary judgment against a party “who fails to 24 make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, 25 on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cetotex, 477 U.S. at 322. A genuine 26 issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence which establishes a factual dispute 27 requiring resolution by a fact-finder. Guam Pac Enter., Inc. v. Guam Foresia Coip. et al., 2007 28 Peter John T. Rios J, v. Atberto Tony’ Larnorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page2ofl2 Guam 22 n.8 (citing lizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int’l (Guam). Inc., 1997 Guam 10 ¶ 7). The factual dispute must also concern a fact “that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and 2 whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit.” Id.
If the moving party demonstrates a lack of a genuine issue of material fact, “the non- movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the complaint, but must produce at least
6 some significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.” Ethvards v. Pacific Fin.
7 Corp. et at., 2000 Guam 27 n. 7 (citations omitted). Thus, the ultimate inquiry for the Court is
8 “whether the ‘specific fact’ set forth by the nonmoving party, coupled with undisputed
9 background or contextual facts, are such that a rational or reasonable jury might return a verdict
10 in its favor based on that evidence.” Bank of Guam v. Ftores, 2004 Guam 25 n.7. In determining 11 a motion for summary judgment, “the court must draw inferences and view the evidence in a 12 light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id._Having established the standard for summary 13 judgment, the Court moves to examine Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff’s 14 four claims. 15 B. Claim for Production of Documents Pursuant to Sunshine Act 16 Plaintiff seeks injunctIve relief in his first claim. Plaintiff argues that Defendant violated 17 Guam’s Sunshine Act by withholding un-redacted copies of informational reports filed by eight 18 fellow detainees as well as the medical records of other detainees. Plaintiff requests that the 19 Court order Defendant to produce these documents. Plaintiff also seeks the release of an 20 allegedly withheld staff report written by Corrections Officer B.A. Whalen. In Defendant’s 21 Motion, Defendant argues that the requested inmate informational reports were unresponsive as 22 Defendant’s review of these reports found no statements exonerating Plaintiff of misconduct. 23 Defendant also states that his review of the medical files found that the disclosure of the 24 requested medical files could raise privacy concerns. If the Court is not willing to grant outright 25 summary judgment, Defendant requests the Court for an in camera review of the disputed 26 documents in the alternative so that the Court could make a proper determination of whether the 27 Sunshine Act requires disclosure of the information and medical reports. The Court agrees. 28 Peter John T. Rios Jt v. Atberto “Ton’,” Larnorena; CV1 045-17 Decision and Order Page 3 of 12 Motions for summary judgments require a developed record However, the current record before
Court contains no specific details on the contents of the disputed documents. The Court can 2 make no determinations of law because the Court has never seen these disputed documents.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendant to file, under seal, all the requested documents that have not been produced to Plaintiff, along with a copy of Plaintiff’s Sunshine Act request. All
6 documents must be filed with the Court by the end of business on february 6, 2019. Once the
Court receives the documents, the Court will conduct an in camera review of the documents, and
8 determine the responsiveness of the disputed documents or whether the documents are covered
9 by a Sunshine Act exemption. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES its decision on Plaintiff’s first
10 claim and holds Plaintiff’s first claim in abeyance until further order from the Court.
11 C. Claim for Sanctions Against Defendant 12 Plaintiff requests the Court to sanction Defendant for knowingly withholding responsive 13 documents per his Sunshine Act request. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he made several 14 attempts to contact Defendant regarding his Sunshine Act request. DOC regulations offer inmates 15 an administrative grievance and complaint system. See generally 24 GAR Art. 16. Plaintiff 16 alleges that he used DOC’s administrative remedy system and filed his Sunshine Act request with 17 Defendant on April 11, 2017. Having received no reply from Defendant, Plaintiff filed a second 18 Sunshine Act request with Defendant using DOC’s InmatelDetainee Mailing System and the 19 United States Postal Service on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s office received 20 his second request on May 14, 2017. Plaintiff filed a third Sunshine Act request as part of an 21 administrative grievance complaint form against Defendant on May 30, 2017. Defendant 22 responded to Plaintiff’s third Sunshine Act request and provided many of Plaintiff’s requested 23 documents on June 7, 2017. However, Defendant withheld several documents arguing that the 24 sought documents were either unresponsive, or covered under an exemption of the Sunshine Act. 25 The standard of review for motions for summary judgment directs the Court to make all 26 factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and grant summary judgment if there are no 27 issues of material fact. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he made two attempts to serve 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Atberto “Tony” [timorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page 4 of 12 Defendant with a Sunshine Act request prior to his May 30, 2017 request. Plaintiff also alleges 1 that Defendant’s lengthy delay in responding to his Sunshine Act requests prejudiced his civil 2 liberties as well as causing him emotional distress. However, Plaintiff offers no probative
evidence supporting his claims. Defendant claims that DOC has no records of any Sunshine Act
requests made by Defendant prior to May 30, 2017. Def.’s Answer at p. 1. Therefore, the Court is 6 faced with both parties making contradictory claims as neither party presents evidence
7 supporting their claim. Therefore, the Court cannot make a factual or legal finding on whether
$ Plaintiff actually made two attempts prior to May 30, 2017, and whether Defendant did not
9 respond to Plaintiff’s alleged attempts.
10 The Court can only look at the May 30, 2017 request, to which Defendant replied on June 11 7, 2017, or six business days after receiving the request. The Sunshine Act requires a government 12 agency to respond to a Sunshine Act request within four business days of receipt. 5 GCA 13 § 10103(d). However, in unusual circumstances, the agency may take up to ten additional 14 business days to respond to a petitioner’s request. 5 GCA § 10103(e). One such unusual 15 circumstance allows an agency more time if responding to a single request demanding more than 16 ten separate and distinct records. 5 GCA § 10l03(e)(2). From what the Court gathers from 17 Plaintiff’s Sunshine Act request, Plaintiff demanded more than ten separate and distinct records 18 from the DOC. Therefore, the Sunshine Act authorized Defendant to utilize the ten additional 19 business days before responding to Plaintiff’s request. Because Defendant’s turnaround time of 20 six business days was within the statutorily allowed time period, the Court declines to find that 21 Defendant delayed production of documents. 22 In his motion, Defendant argues that he acted in good faith when reviewing Plaintiff’s 23 requested documents. Defendant supplemented his motion with a declaration signed by himself. 24 See Deci. of Alberto Lamorena V. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. In his declaration, the Defendant reiterates 25 his acting in good faith when deciding to withhold the disputed documents. Id. at 3. Plaintiff fails 26 to refute this evidence with any evidence of his own. After viewing the available evidence in a 27 light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to sustain his burden of 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Alberto “Tony’ Lwnorena; CVI 045-17 Decision and Order Pages of 12 proving that Defendant acted in bad faith or arbitrarily and capriciously. further, the Court finds 1 no cause to find that Defendant prejudiced Plaintiff’s civil liberties or caused other injury in 2 3 withholding the disputed documents, and sees no cause to sanction Defendant as requested by
Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with
regards to Plaintiff’s second claim.
6 D. Creation of FOIA Officer
7 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for the Court to create a new FOIA Officer
8 position within DOC violates the doctrine of the separation of powers. To fully explore
9 Defendant’s third argument, the Court must first examine the relationships between the three
10 branches of the Government of Guam pursuant to the doctrine of the separation of powers.
11 “Under the Organic Act, the government of Guam is comprised of three separate but co-equal 12 branches of government”. In re Request of Gutierrez, 2002 Guam 1 ¶ 32 (citing 48 U.S.C. § 13 l421a (1992) (“The government of Guam shall consist of three branches, executive, legislative 14 and judicial....”)). Thus, implicit in the language of the Organic Act is the traditional concept of 15 separation of powers. See Vitlagomez-Falisson v. Sttperior Court, 2004 Guam 13 ¶ 14; 16 Pangelinan v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 11 ¶ 31; see also Hamlet v. Cha,fattros, 1999 Guam 18 ¶ 17 9 (“By its very language, therefore, the Organic Act requires application of the constitutional 18 doctrine of separation of powers to government of Guam functions.”) (citation omitted). Under 19 the separation of powers doctrine, “one branch of government is prohibited from either 20 delegating its enumerated powers to another branch of the government or aggrandizing its 21 powers by reserving for itself the powers given to another branch.” In re Request of Gtttierrez, 22 2002 Guam 1 ¶ 35 (citations omitted). The separation of powers doctrine exists to “prevent[] the 23 abuses that can flow from centralization of power.” Mo. Coalition for Env’t v. Joint Comm. on 24 Admin. Rules, 948 S.W.2d 125, 132 (Mo.1997) (en banc) (citation omitted); see also Book v. 25 State Office Bldg. Comm’n, 238 md. 120, 149 N.E.2d 273, 293 (1958) (recognizing that the 26 purpose of separating the powers of each branch is “to preclude a commingling of these 27 essentially different powers of the government in the same hands”) (citation omitted). 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Alberto “Tony” Itimorena; CVI 045-17 Decision and Order Page6of 12 The Organic Act tasks the Judicial Branch with interpreting the laws enacted by the 1 Legislative Branch, vesting judicial power in the Guam Supreme Court, the Superior Court, and 2 all other local courts created under the laws of Guam. See 4$ U.S.C. § 1424-1. “[T]he essence of
judicial power is the final authority to render and enforce a judgment or remedy.” Firelock Inc. v.
Dist. Ct., 776 P.2d 1090, 1094 (Colo.1989). “[J]udicial power is the power to interpret and apply
6 the laws to actual controversies. Judicial power has also been defined as ‘the power to hear and
determine a cause and the rights of the parties to a controversy, and to render a binding judgment
8 or decree based on present or past facts under existing laws.’ “Gleason v. Samaritan Home and
9 Chttrch Mttt. Ins. Co., 926 P.2d 1349, 1359—60 (Kan.1996) (citation omitted).
10 Similarly, the Organic Act vests executive power in the “Office of the Governor”. The 11 Governor’s powers and duties include: 12 [The] general supervision and control of all the departments, bureaus, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the executive branch of the government of Guam.... 13 He shall appoint, and may remove, all officers and employees of the executive 14 branch of the government of Guam, except as otherwise provided in this or any other Act of Congress, or under the laws of Guam, and shall commission all 15 officers he may be authorized to appoint. He shall he responsible for the faithful execution of the law of Guam and the Jaws of the United States applicable in 16 Guam. 17 48 U.S.C. § 1422. Simply put, the Organic Act requires the Governor to enforce the laws enacted
18 by the Guam Legislature. To do so, the Governor can appoint and empower officials to
19 administer and oversee the various departments and agencies within the Executive Branch. See
20 In re Reqttest of Governor Felix P. aniacho, 2004 Guam 10 ¶ 44; In re Request of Gutierrez,
21 2002Guam1JI39. 22 Having established the duties and responsibilities of the Executive and Judicial branches, 23 the Court next examines how to evaluate a separation of powers violation. In People v. Perez, 24 1999 Guam 2, the Guam Supreme Court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s framework 25 for evaluating a potential violation: 26 In determining whether the Act disrupts the proper balance between the 27 coordinate branches, the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Alberto “Tony” Lamorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page7of 12 Only where the potential for disruption is present must we then determine whether 1 the impact is justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within the 2 constitutional authority of Congress. Id. at ¶ 17 (citing Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977) (citation 3 omitted)). The Perez court found that the framework required the evaluation of two separate
elements: (1) whether the disputed activity prevents the accomplishment of a branchs
constitutional functions and (2) if so, whether the disruptive impact is justified by any overriding 6 constitutional need. Id. Having received guidance on how to evaluate a potential violation of the 7 separation of powers doctrine, the Court will apply the Perez court’s framework to Plaintiff’s 8 request.
10 Plaintiff requests the Court to create a FOIA Officer position within DOC. Title 5 GCA
11 Section 3113 establishes DOC within the Executive Branch. The Governor appoints the Director
12 of the Department of Corrections with the advice and consent of the Guam Legislature. 5 GCA
13 § 3113. Within the Department, Guam law allows the Director to appoint officers and employees 14 of the Department. 9 GCA § 90.35(b). A plain language reading of 48 U.S.C. § 1422 and 9 GCA
15 § 90.35(b) shows the Court that only the Governor or his appointed Director of the Department 16 of Corrections has the authority to create anew position within DOC. Thus, if the Court were to
17 grant Plaintiff’s request and appoint a FOIA Officer at DOC, the Court would be preventing or
18 impeding the Governor from exercising his Organic Act duty of supervising and controlling 19 DOC. Because a Court-ordered appointment of a FOIA Officer would prevent or impede the 20 Executive Branch, the Court examines if this disruption can be justified by any overriding 21 constitutional need. The Court sees no overriding constitutional need that would require the 22 Court to order the Executive Branch to hire a FOIA Officer at DOC. Therefore, the Court finds 23 that the Court lacks jurisdiction to order DOC to hire a FOIA Officer. Doing so would exceed the 24 Court’s Organic Act-vested authority, and would also violate the doctrine of separation of 25 powers. BecaLise the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court holds no authority to 26 address the merits of this claim or to grant judgment in favor of Defendant. See DfS Guam L.P. 27 v. A.B. Won Pat Int’l Airport Auth., 2014 Guam 12 ¶ 23. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Alberto “Tony’ 1.nnzorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page8ofl2 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment over Plaintiffs third claim and DISMISSES
WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs third claim for the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. 2 E. Claims of the Infliction of Emotional Distress
4 Plaintiff’s fourth claim alleges that Defendant’s withholding of his requested documents caused him emotional distress due to the punitive nature of being held away from normal inmate
6 confinement. Actions bringing a claim of infliction of emotional distress are traditionally brought
as either the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, or the tort of Negligent Infliction
$ of Emotional Distress. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, 313. The Court sees two
9 immediate issues with Plaintiff’s claim for tort damages. First, Plaintiff does not specify which
10 tort from which to recover. Second, the Court recognizes that the DOC enjoys protection under
11 sovereign immunity as a Government of Guam agency. Because sovereign immunity can serve 12 as an absolute bar against Plaintiff’s claim, the Court first analyzes this issue. 13 The Government of Guam and its agencies enjoy broad protections under sovereign 14 immunity. Sumitomo Construction Co., Ltd. ‘. Gov’t of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 ¶ 8. Sovereign 15 immunity can only be waived with legislation. Id. at ¶ 9. The Guam Legislature waived 16 sovereign immunity on tort claims being brought against a Government of Guam agency in the 17 Government Claims Act. Title 5 Guam Code Annotated Section 6106 states in relevant part:
Pursuant to Section 3 of the Guam Organic Act, the Government of Guam hereby 19 waives immunity from suit, but only as hereinafter provided: (h) for claims in tort, arising from the negligent acts of its employees acting for 20 and at the direction of the government of Guam, even though occurring in an activity to which private persons do not engage. 21 GCA § 6 105(b). A reading of this statute shows that, although the Government Claims Act 22 waives sovereign immunity for negligence tort actions brought against Government of Guam, 23 claimants bringing suit against the Government of Guam must still adhere to all requirements 24 . . . under the Government Claims Act. One of such requirements is the timely filing of all applicable 25 claims. 5 GCA § 6106. Once a claim is timely filed, a party may only file an action in the 26 superior court if the claim was rejected by the Government of Guam agency. 5 GCA § 620$. The 27 reasoning behind the exhaustion requirement is to “avoid unnecessary litigation by enabling the 28 Peter John T Rtos Jr. v. Alberto ‘Tony’ Ijimorena: CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page 9 of 12 Government to promptly evaluate and investigate claims for early settlement at the 1 administrative level.” Hartford Accident & Indemnity v. United States, 720 f.Supp. 258, 260 2 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) (citing Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d $36, $42 (2d Cir. 1983)); see also
Pan Tech Mgmt. Corp. v. United States. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dcv., 788 F.Supp. 152, 153 n.2
5 (E.D.N.Y.1992).
6 In the instant matter, if Plaintiff intended to bring suit for the intentional tort of
7 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Government of Guam’s sovereign immunity bars
$ Plaintiff from bringing this suit. The Government Claims Act does not waive sovereign
9 immunity for intentional torts. See 5 GCA § 6105; Wood v. Gttam Power Auth., 2000 Guam 1$
10 at 6. If Plaintiff intended to bring suit for the tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,
11 Plaintiff must follow the administrative steps stated in the Government Claims Act. However, 12 Plaintiff offers no evidence that he filed a timely claim with DCC regarding the allegations of 13 Director Lamorena’s alleged negligence tort. Absent a showing of a timely claim rejected by 14 DCC, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative remedies prior to 15 bringing his claim against Defendant. Therefore, the Court finds that the Court lacks subject- 16 matter jurisdiction for either tort cause of action because, either sovereign immunity bars 17 Plaintiff from bringing suit, or Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to 1$ the Government Claims Act. Accordingly, the Court must DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 19 Plaintiffs fourth claim. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to refile a negligence tort action against 20 Defendant once he has exhausted the Government Claims Act’s administrative requirements 21 found in Title 5 Chapter 6 of the Guam Code Annotated. Further, as Defendant moved for 22 . . . . summary judgment on this fourth claim, the Court finds that the Court has no jurisdiction to 23 address the merits of this fourth claim or to grant judgment. Therefore, the Court DENIES 24 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment over Plaintiff’s fourth claim. 25
26 /
27 /
28 II Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Atberto “Tony” Lwnorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page 10 of 12 1 Conclusion for the reasons set forth above, the Court can make no determinations of law because the 2 Court has never seen the contents of these disputed documents. Therefore, the Court ORDERS
Defendant to file, under seal, all the requested documents that have not been produced to
Plaintiff, along with a copy of Plaintiff’s Sunshine Act request. All documents must be filed with
6 the Court by the end of business on February 6, 2019. Once the Court receives the documents,
the Court will conduct an in camera review of the documents, and determine whether the
8 disputed documents are either responsive to Plaintiff’s request or covered by a Sunshine Act
9 exemption. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES its decision on Plaintiff’s first claim and holds
10 Plaintiff’s first claim in abeyance until further order from the Court.
11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to sustain his burden of 12 proving that Defendant acted in bad faith or arbitrarily and capriciously. Further, the Court finds 13 no cause to find that Defendant prejudiced Plaintiff’s civil liberties or other injury in withholding 14 the disputed documents, and sees no cause to sanction Defendant as requested by Plaintiff. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regards to 16 Plaintiff’s second claim. 17 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to 18 order DOC to establish a fOlA Officer. Doing so would exceed the Court’s Organic Act-vested 19 authority, and would also violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Further, because the Court 20 has no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court holds no authority to address the merits of this claim 21 or to grant judgment in favor of Defendant. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s 22 Motion for Summary Judgment over Plaintiff’s third claim and DISMISSES WITH 23 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s third claim for the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. 24 for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Court lacks subject-matter 25 jurisdiction for either potential tort action because either sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff from 26 bringing suit, or Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the 27 Government Claims Act. Because the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court holds no 28 Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Atberto “Ton)” Laniorena; CV 1045-17 Decision and Order Page 11 of 12 authority to address the merits of this claim or to grant judgment in favor of Defendant. 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment over Plaintiff’s 2 fourth claim and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s fourth claim. The Court
grants Plaintiff leave to refile a negligence tort action against Defendant once he has exhausted
the Government Claims Act’s administrative requirements.
6 7 SO ORDERED JAN C? ZC2
10 11 HON RAB RIA T. CEr4ZON 12 JUDG PERIOR COURT OF GUAM ,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 coUTT BOX
20 pacedInth
Guam
24 25 26 27
2$ Peter John T. Rios Jr. v. Atberto “Tony” Luiiorena; CV! 045-17 Decision and Order Page l2of 12