Fw In Fl LED g.U§;\ER1Q§ SUPERIOR scum COURT .,r- ;....,u ..• l ,-,.. -...JJ f'-~ •; l 1\-'•1' J:l',.1• •
2025 zfzzsOCT 23 PH our23 PH 3: 3: 21 27 CLERK GF Of CUURT COURT
1 IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIORCOURT COURTOF OFGUAQIY: GUAt'f: _ _~ _ _ :;:·~--
JAY MATTHEW JAY MATTHEW STRADER, Special ProceedingsCase CaseNo. No. SP0061-25 SP0061-25
Petitioner, Petitioner, DECISION AND ORDER DENYING vs. vs. PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CIVIL CIVIL SERVICE SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE THE ATTORNEY ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents. Respondents.
Petitioner Petitioner Jay Jay Matthew Matthew Strider Straderasks asks the the Court Court to to reinstate reinstate his his dismissed grievance appeal appeal
before the Civil Civil Service ServiceCommission. Commission. The TheCSC CSCfound foundthat thatStrader Straderfailed failedto toexhaust exhaust his
administrative remedies at the agency agency level; level, Strayer Stradercounters counters that that exhaustion was futile due to
individual andsystemic individual and systemicbias biasatathis hisemployer, employer, the the Officeofofthe Office theAttorney AttorneyGeneral General(OAG). (OAG). The
Court finds that that exhaustion exhaustionwas wasnot notfutile futileand andtherefore thereforeDENIES DENIESStrader's Strider's Petition Petition for for Judicial Judicial
Review.
I. FACTUAL FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS
A. Strider's Strader'sgrievances grievancesand andthe theadministrative administrativeproceedings. proceedings.
Strader is Strider is employed employedas as an an attorney at the OAG.22 In the OAG. InJuly July 2024, 2024, the agency relocated relocated his
officefrom fromthe 8th to the 8th th floor at its ITC Building location. office to the the 99th Strader "began floor at its ITC Building location. Thereafter, Strader
hearing cracking hearing cracking sounds soundsininthe thewalls wallsof oftwo twoof of the theexecutive executive offices offices that he he was wasusing. using. The
11 The The Court supplements supplements this this Decision Decision and and Order with additional facts and and analysis detailed in in a sealed Order filed filed concurrently herewith. 2 Following oral arguments on the the Court Court asked asked the parties to confirm confirm Strader's Strader's status status 2 Following oral arguments on the motion, the as a current currentemployee. employee. Order for Briefs Briefs on on Mootness Mootness (Sept. (Sept. 15, 15, 2025). Neither Neitherparty party responded. responded.
ORIGINAL 0RIG%NAL SP0061-25 SP006l-25 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DECISION AND DENYING PETITION PETITION FOR FOR JUDICIAL Page22 REVIEW REVIEW
cracking was frequent and distracting, and sometimes sometimes itit was was loud enough enough to raise concern about
hearing loss, not least least because [he] [he] wore a hearing hearing aid aid in in his his left left ear." ear." Pet. Pet.Jud. Jud.Rev. Rev. atat22 (Apr- (Apr.
21, 2025). 2025). That same month, he submitted a grievance "that he allowed to lapse because the
OAG moved him door." Id. him to another office, next door." Id.
On August 21, 2024, 2024, Strader's Strayer's supervisor, Deputy Attorney General Joseph Guthrie,
"All 9th issued a Memorandum to "All thFloor FloorEmployees", Employees", entitled entitled"Noise "NoiseDiscipline." Discipline." Submission
Record on Appeal at E30 (Apr. (Apr. 21, 21, 2025). 2025). Guthrie stated:
some of our our employees employeesare areextremely extremelysensitive sensitivetotonoise. noise.... Those employees employees deserve, deserve, as we all do, to be able to work in a comfortable environment. Therefore, Therefore, I would like to officially th floor to ... request the cooperation of all employees on the 99th floor to ... purposely/Mllfully engaging refrain from purposely/willfully engaging inin loud loud or or distracting noises. n01ses.
Id. Id.
On September 25, 2024, Strader filed filed a Step 22 grievance, grievance, again again complaining of of cracldng cracking
noise. Pet. n01se. Pet. Jud. Jud. Rev., Rev., Ex. G at E35. Two Two days days later, later, Guthrie Guthrie responded responded that the the Step Step 2 grievance
was largely similar to Strader's first grievance. grievance. Guthrie's Guthrie's response response summarized summarized what the OAG
had done to address Strader's concerns, which consisted consisted of of inspection of of his work areas
including interior and exterior walls, windows Windows and and ceilings; ceilings, relocation relocation of of Strader's Strider's office office to one
where Guthrie had previously worked and not experienced noise; noise, issued the Noise Discipline
Memo, Memo; and displayed a poster developed developed by by Strader Strader regarding regarding"HEARING "HEARING AID AID IN IN USE." USE." Id.,
Ex. Ex.Hat E37-38. Guthrie Guthrie then then explained explained further further steps steps in in response response to to the Step 2 grievance,
another office including another office relocation relocation away away from from exterior exterior walls walls and and Windows, of a headset, windows; use of headset; and
an offer for a work-from-home accommodation if work-from-home accommodation if recommended recommended by by aa medical professional. Id. medical professional.
Guthrie noted that in the new office, "Your alleged tormentors will not be able to torment you
below your new office is a conference room with interior from the floor below, because the room below
ORIGENAL ORIGINAL SP006l-25 AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL DECISION AND Page3 Page 3 REVIEW REVIEW
glass windows, Windows,making makingthe theentire entireroom roomvisible visiblefrom fromthe hallway." Id thehallway." Guthrieagain Id Guthrie againasked asked that that
Strader have have his hishearing hearingaid aidexamined examinedby byan anaudiologist. audiologist. Id. Id. Guthrie Guthrie concluded:
Matt, you you have have alleged allegedin inwriting writingthat thatthe thesounds sounds you you are are hearing hearing are are caused caused by fellow fellow employees' employees' intent intent on on tormenting you. Frankly, Frankly, I do do not not know what, what, if if anything, you are are hearing. hearing. These sounds These sounds do not seem to have detracted from from acceptable. What your work, which is acceptable. What concerns me me is is feelings feelings of animosity must have you must havetoward towardyour yourfellow fellow staff staff members you believe believe are are tormenting you. As manager, l1carrot Asaa manager, cannotallow allowsuch suchan an explosive explosivesituation situation to exist exist in in this this office office without without getting to to the bottom of of it.
You have filed a grievance. We You We are are now now atat Step 2.2. We We have have arranged arranged for you to be examined examined by aa medical doctor doctor pursuant pursuant to to the the Department Department of of Personnel Rules Administration's Personnel Rules andandRegulations, Regulations,RuleRule9.002 9.002C.C. The The examination willbe examination will bepaid paidininfull fullbybythethe Government Government of of Guam.... Guam. . . If you refuse to be examined, we will will assert, assert, in in response response to to your grievance, your failure, when when given given the the opportunity opportunity to to do do so, so, to to rule rule out out a medical cause for the noises you hear-thus hear-thus denying denyingus us the the opportunity opportunity to perform perform a complete investigationof investigation ofyour yourgrievance. grievance....
Id Id at at E39. E39.
That same day, day, Strader submitted submitted another anotherStep Step22grievance, grievance, alleging alleging that Guthrie
misrepresented facts facts and andknowingly knowingly stated stated false false facts facts in in his his September September27 27response. response. Id., Id., Ex. Ex. I.
On October October 2, 2024, Guthrie responded responded to to Strader's second Step 2 grievance, which which he described
to be procedurally improper. However, However,Guthrie Guthriealso alsoelaborated elaboratedon onstatements statements in in his his September September
27 Memorandum: Memorandum:
I used the term tormentor tormentor because becauseyouyouclaim claimpeople peoplein inthis thisoffice office are 3 causing you to causing you to hear hear crackling cracklings noise. I never noise. never said said you you don't hear crackling. crackling. I do believe believe you you hear hear crackling noise. IIonly onlydisagree disagreewith withyou youabout about the the source source of of the crackling noise.
assure you I can assure youthat thatIIdo donot notknow knowthe thesource sourceofofthe thecrackling. crackling. My My only request is that thatyou youjoin join me me in in searching searchingfor forthe thesource sourceofofthe thecrackling. crackling. Toward that end, end, II have have arranged for you arrangedfor you to to be be moved moved to the the other side side of of the building,
3 Guthrie sometimes describes Strader as complaining of "crackling" noise; however, Strader 3 Guthrie sometimes describes Strader as complaining of "crackling" noise, however, Strider consistently describes consistently describesititas as"cracking." TheCourt "cracking" The Courtquotes quotes Guthrie's Guthrie's text text as as written.
ORIGBNAL ORIGINAL SP0061-25 SP006l-25 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL Page4 Page 4 REVIEW REVIEW
to separate so as to you from separate you any source of crackling on this side of the building. from any medical professional. Also, I am arranging for you to be seen by a medical
*** *** you suffer It may be that you from auditory suffer from hallucinations. Lots of people auditory hallucinations. people But so do. But long as so long you get as you your work get your done, such work done, such auditory hallucinations, even if unresolvable, would not concern unresolvable, would us. However, you blame your fellow concern us. employees for employees for causing the sounds you hear. sounds you
I am responsible for the safety of the safety employees in of employees this office. in this office. Such may be a precursor animosity, as it may to violence precursor to to concern me. violence has got to
Ex. J.J. Strayer Id., Ex. he submit Strader again refused Guthrie's request that he to aa medical submit to examination. Id. medical examination.
In an October 9, 2024 Memorandum, 9, 2024 Attorney General Memorandum, Attorney Douglas Moylan General Douglas advised Strader Moylan advised Strider
that he has been scheduled for a "special psychological/medical examination to determine your "special psychological/medical
ability to perform the major functions of your functions of position." Id., Ex. K. your position." Strader again However, Strader K. However,
refused to undergo a medical evaluation. at 3. Id. at evaluation. Id.
2024, Strader Instead, on October 11, 2024, filed aagrievance Strayer filed appealwith grievanceappeal theCSC. withthe Id, Ex. M. CSC. Id.,
He asserts that, he filed when he that, when his appeal, ilea his he was appeal, he unaware that the OAG had already formed a was unaware
Committee to address his grievances. Id. Grievance Committee at 3. Id. at
Also on October 11, 2024, Guthrie issued 2024, Guthrie Memorandum to Strader acknowledging issued aa Memorandum acknowledging that
Strader missed Strider his scheduled missed his evaluation due scheduled evaluation to aa "dental due to appointment, your "dental appointment, cold, and your cold, of and the press of
other matters." Submission RA at E46. Guthrie advised E46. Guthrie of a rescheduled evaluation and warned, advised of
to attend may "Your failure to in disciplinary may result in action taken disciplinary action against you." taken against you." Id.
On October 15, 2024, 2024, the the Grievance Committee, consisting of OAG employees Fred Grievance Committee,
Ilagan, issued its findings. Nishihira, Grant Olan, Gloria Rudolph, and Raymond Hagan, Jud. Rev., Pet. Jud. findings. Pet.
Ex. P. recommendedthat Committee recommended P. The Committee Straderundergo that Strider medicalevaluation undergo aa medical to "rule[] evaluationto out aa "rule[] out
medical cause for the noises," to have an audiologist "determine medical that his hearing aid is working "determine that worldng
ORIGINAL ORIGE I SP0061-25 SP006l-25 AND ORDER DENYING PETITION DECISION AND PETITION FOR FOR JUDICIAL Page 5 REVIEW
and to properly," and to again be beoffered tiered aaheadset headset to mitigate noise or be allowed to work home home if
deemed appropriate appropriate by by aamedical medicalprofessional. professional. Id. at E52.
2024, AG On October 18, 2024, AG Moylan Moylan informed informed Strider Straderthat that he he concurred concurred with the Grievance
Committee's Committee'sconclusions conclusionsand and recommendations recommendations that that Strader Strader have his hearing aid inspected by a
licensed audiologist and undergo undergo aamedical medicalevaluation evaluationto torule mle out outmedical issues. Id., medicalissues. EX.0. Id., Ex. O. On
October 31, October 31, 2024, 2024, Guthrie informed informedStrader Straderby byMemorandum Memorandumthat that he he must must secure an
appointment with aa qualified appointment with qualified and andduly dulylicensed licensedaudiologist, audiologist,which whichthe theOAG OAG will pay, pay, or be
subject to to disciplinary disciplinary action. action. Submission Submission RA at at E62. Guthrie Guthrie notes, notes, "I "Itake take itit that that you you find find the
current location of current location of your office officesatisfactory, satisfactory, as as I have have heard nothing nothing to to the the contrary. contrary. Let me know
of of any problems thatarise." problems that arise." Id. Id.
On March 20, 2025, 2025, the the CSC CSC dismissed Strader's grievance appeal appeal because Strider had because Strader had
prematurely filed it before the Grievance Committee rendered its decision. prematurely filed decision. Pet. Pet. Jud. Rev., Ex. U. Jud. Rev.,
B. Complaints ComplaintsAgainst Against Other OtherEmployees Employees
Strader has hasalso alsoreported reportedthat thatin inNovember November 2023, 2023, he hefiled filed a criminal complaint complaint against
Ilagan. According Attorney Ray lagan. Accordingtotoaafiling filinghehesubmitted submitted before before the the CSC, CSC, Strider Strader reported: reported:
"Employee has "Employee has alleged alleged a criminal criminal complaint complaintagainst against[Ilagan]. Whilealone [lagan]. While alonein inthe the elevator elevator at at the
ITC building ITC buildingwith withMr. Mr.Hagan Ilagan in in November November2023, 2023, he he screamed screamed at a high high pitch pitchwithin feet of my within feet
left ear. The left The tinnitus tinnitus in that ear became flat ear became louder afterwards." Submission RA afterwards." Submission RA at E57. There is E57. There is no
document demonstrating document demonstratingHagan's ofthe knowledge of lagan's knowledge the criminal criminal complaint complaint against against him.
Petition for C. Petition for Judicial Judicial Review
Strader petitioned Strider petitioned this Court for judicial review, review, requesting requesting that the the CSC's dismissal of CSC's dismissal of
his grievance appeal appeal be be reversed. Pet. Jud. reversed. Pet. Jud. Rev. TheOAG Rev. The OAGresponded respondedand and argued argued that Strader Strider
failed to failed to exhaust exhaust his his administrative administrativeremedies remediesby byfiling filing an an appeal appealbefore beforethe theOAG's OAG's Grievance .
URl ORIGINAL GSNAL SP0061-25 SP006l-25 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL Page 6 Page REVIEW
Committee's decision. Committee's Resp.atat33(May decision. Resp. 21,2025). (May21, TheCourt 2025).The heardthe Courtheard Petitionon thePetition July 17 onJuly and 17 and
24, 2025, and took the matter under advisement. took the
II. 11. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Strader concedes Strayer thathe concedes that filed his hefiled grievance appeal his grievance before the appeal before Grievance Committee the Grievance
decision on his rendered aa decision Step 22 grievance. his Step Jud. Rev. Pet. Jud. grievance. Pet. at 6. Rev. at Heargues 6. He that his arguesthat procedural his procedural
because the error can be overlooked because GrievanceCommittee's theGrievance review was futile Committee's review due to futile due actual bias to actual
and systemic bias.
A. Story-Bernardo doesnot Story-Bernardo does not preclude preclude bias bias as asan an exception exceptionto tothe doctrine of thedoctrine of exhaustion of exhaustion of administrative administrative remedies. remedies.
As As aa preliminary preliminary matter, matter, the the Court addresses the OAG's Court addresses that Story-Bernardo v. argument that OAG's argument v.
Gov Gov 't of ofGuam, Guam, 2023 Guam27, 2023 Guam 27,precludes reviewofofStrader' precludesreview s complaints Strider's ofbias. complaintsof The OAG bias. The OAG
contends that Story-Bernardo holds that an must have agency must an agency issuedaadecision have issued in order for the decision in
issue of futility to to be be analyzed. analyzed. In Inother other words, to the according to words, according OAG,the the OAG, presence of the presence bias alone ofbias
cannot excuse excuse the of exhaustion of lack of the lack of administrative remedies.
Story-Bernardo states that Story-Bernardo "under certain that "under circumstances, aaplaintiff certain circumstances, need not plaintiff need exhaust not exhaust
administrative remedies to sue." 2023 Guam 27 2023 Guam ,i 21. "Under 27 1121. need party need exception, aa party "Under the futility exception,
not exhaust administrativeremedies exhaustadministrative therecord remediesififthe reflectsthat recordreflects wouldbe thatititwould futileto befutile doso." todo ,i Id. 'll so." Id.
22 (citing Barrett-Anderson v. Camacho, Barrett-Anderson v. 2015 Guam Camacho, 2015 20 ,i'I 32). Guam 20 circumstances ofcircumstances Examples of 32). Examples
futilityas displaying futility discussed in as discussed where the in Story-Bernardo include where agency lacks the agency jurisdiction or lacks jurisdiction
made it clear that where the agency has made the process that the would be futile. Story-Bernardo, processwould 2023 Guam Story-Bernardo, 2023
27,i1122. 22.
understands OAG The Court understands to contend OAG to thateven contend that if an employee propounds allegations even if
ofagency of bias, the agency bias, decision in order for the agency must still render a decision even be for futility to even evaluated. be evaluated.
According to the According to OAG,because the OAG, Strader did not because Strader wait for not wait the Grievance for the Comlnittee's decision Grievance Committee's
ORIGIN/\L ORHGENAL SP0061-25 sp0061-25 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION PETITION FOR FOR JUDICIAL Page Page 77 REVIEW
before filing a grievance appeal, he cannot cannot even even argue that such decision derived out of of biased
decisionmakers.
The Court does does not not agree agree with withthis thisassessment. assessment. In In stating stating that "futility... that "futility .. . applies applies only only if if
the party invoking itit can can positively state state that the administrative agency has declared what its
ruling will be in a particular case," Story-Bernardo Story-Bernardo was referencing the scenario in which a
person attempts to call an administrative process futile because they they believed the agency has
already declared how it would rule.
That is not the same situation here. here. Strader's Strader's complaint complaint concerns concerns a different exhaustion
exception-bias. exception-bias.AsAsananexception exceptiontotoadministrative administrativeexhaustion, exhaustion,the theconcept concept of ofbias bias is not
discussed in Story-Bernardo; Story-Bernardo, however, that does does not not mean mean itit is is not not aa recognized recognized exception. exception. Bias
speaks to a fundamental fundamental aspect aspect of ofadministrative administrativereview-due review-due process. process. Indeed, Indeed, other other courts
recognize the deprivation of due process process to to be be an an exception exception to to the the exhaustion exhaustion doctrine. doctrine. For
example, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that bias within an administrative
review process renders that review inadequate. See McCarthy v. v. Madigan, Madigan, 503 503 U.S. 140, 148 U.S. 140, 148
(1992) superseded by statute on other grounds, 42 USC by statute USC§§ 1997(e). 1997(e). Also, Also, in in Briley Bailey v.v. City City of of
Covina, 281 Cal. Rptr. ad West Coving, 3d 59, 69 (Ct. App. 2021), the California appellate court held that
"the "the exhaustion exhaustion requirement is excused excused if if the relevant administrative remedy fails to satisfy the
standards of of due due process. process.... . . [D]ue . [D]ueprocess processentitles entitlesa aperson personseeking seekingadministrative administrative review review to to a
reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer." Id. See also Id. See Breiner v. State Dental Com 'n, also Brainer 'n, 750 750
A.2d 1111, 1116 1116 (Conn. (Conn. App. App. 2000) 2000) ("Agency ("Agency bias bias isis aa ground ground for for meeting meetingthe the 'futility' 'futility'
requirement.").
These persuasive authorities convince this Couit Court that Story-Bernardo Story-Bernardo does does not preclude preclude
the consideration of bias as an exception to the exhaustion doctrine.
ORIGINAL ORI@SNAL SP0061-25 JUDICIAL DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL Page Page 8 REVIEW
B. Strider Straderdoes doesnot notdemonstrate demonstrateactual actualbias bias by by members members of of the Grievance Committee.
Strader's complaint In evaluating Strader's complaint of ofbias, bias, the the Court Court adopts adopts the the standard standard in in Briley, Bailey, as as
proposed by Strader:44 "as "as a matter of of due process, an official whose prior dealings with the
employee have employee have created created substantial substantial animosity animosity and and whose whose own ownconduct conductand andcharacter character are are central central to
the proceeding may not not serve as a decision maker." 281 281 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. ad 3d at 72. Notably, Briley 72. Notably, Bailey
established several caveats caveats to to this this holding: holding: the presence of of any conflict between between an employee employee
and a reviewer does not render the reviewer disqualified, disqualified; a decision maker need not be
proceeding to completely insulated from the proceeding to be be rendered rendered reasonably reasonably impartial, impartial; and, "[i]n most
required to pursue an available administrative cases, an employee will be required administrative remedy, remedy,
notwithstanding some some level level of ofadverse adverse interactions interactions with with the the ultimate ultimate decision decision makers makers or or prior
involvement by them." Id. involvement at 71-72. Id. at 71-72.
Strader lodges lodges allegations allegations of of bias bias against againsttwo two Grievance GrievanceCommittee Committee members: Ilagan members: Hagan
and Rudolph. With With respect respect to lagan, Ilagan, Strider Straderclaims claims that that his his criminal complaint against against Ilagan
Ilagan to would have caused Hagan to feel feel significant significant animosity animosity towards towards Strader. Strader' s arguments Strider. Strayer's arguments fall
short, however, because Strader Strader fails to demonstrate in in the the record record that that Hagan Ilagan had awareness of of
the criminal report. Moreover, even report. Moreover, even ifif Hagan Ilagan had knowledge of the complaint, knowledge of complaint, Strider Strader still still failed
to show that Ilagan's Ilagan's character and and conduct conduct were were central central to to these these present present proceedings. proceedings. Even
assuming that Ilagan Hagan yelled at Strader in the the elevator, causing an increase in Strader's Strayer's tinnitus,
that event occurred nine months before the relevant grievances and eleven months before the
Grievance Committee issued its findings. The Court findings. The Court finds no connection between between the alleged
44 The The OAG OAG did did not not propose propose an an alternative alternative method method of examining whether whether bias existed.
QRQGF ,mL ORI if~AL SP0061-25 SP006l-25 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL Page Page 99 REVIEW REVIEW
event and yelling event and Hagan's position on Ilagan's position on the Grievance Committee so so as as to to satisfy satisfy the thetest testof ofIlagan lagan
either having substantial Strader, or his conduct being part ofthe substantial animosity toward Strader, the issue.
As for As for Rudolph, Rudolph, Strader's Strader'sclaims claimsstand stand even even more more attenuated. attenuated. Against AgainstRudolph, Rudolph, then then the
ChiefProsecutor, acting Chief Prosecutor, Strader Strader claims claims that that she would have known about about Strader's Strader's criminal criminal
complaint against complaint against Hagan, Ilagan, which which would would have have rendered rendered her unable unable to to exercise an impartial
judgment. Moreover,Strider judgment. Moreover, Straderclaims, claims,Rudolph Rudolphknew knewabout about the the criminal complaint complaint and failed to
take take action to to have Ilagan Hagan excused excusedfrom from the the Grievance Grievance Committee.
Briley recognizes that the Again, even Bailey the mere mere existence existence of of any any conflict between an conflict between an
employee employee and reviewer does and a reviewer does not not automatically render thereviewer render the reviewer biased. biased. To To be be clear, clear, there there is
no demonstrated no demonstrated"substantial "substantialanimosity" animosity" let let alone alone conflict between Strader conflict between Strader and andRudolph. Rudolph. In fact,
there no evidence that Rudolph, there is no Rudolph, as as acting acting Chief Chief Prosecutor, Prosecutor, knew knew that thatStrader Strider filed filed aa criminal
complaint. However, However,even evenif if sheshedid, did,Strader Straderfails failstotodemonstrate demonstratethat thatshe sheheld heldsubstantial substantial
Strader ((or vice versa). animosity towards Strader versa). She Shealso alsohad hadno norole rolein inthe the events events leading leading up up to his
grievances grievances so so as as to cause to believe cause this Court to believe her her own own conduct conduct was was at at issue.
Thus, under the Bailey standard proposed Briley standard proposed by Strader, Strader, he he has has not demonstrated that
members of the Grievance members Grievance Committee Committee possessed possessed actual actual bias against him.
C. Strader Straderdoes does not notdemonstrate demonstrate systemic systemic bias.
Strader posits posits that that aabroader, broader,systemic systemicbias biasjustifies justifies rendering rendering the the exhaustion exhaustion of of
administrative remedies remedies futile. AccordingtotoStrader, futile. According Strader, as as employees employees of ofthe the OAG OAGand andsubordinate subordinate
AG Moylan to AG Moylanand andGuthrie, Guthrie, the the members members of of the the Grievance Grievance Committee Committee have have aa financial financial interest interest in
supporting Guthrie's decisions. Strader supporting Strader contends contends that this financial financial interest develops develops into a
conflict of conflict ofinterest. interest.
ORIG1N/\L SP0061-25 JUDICIAL DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR JUDICIAL Page 10 Page 10 REVIEW REVIEW
support of In support of his hisposition positionon onsystemic systemicbias, bias,Strader Stridercites citesjust justwo twocases-Briley, 281 Cal. cases-Briley, 281
th 3d 59 and Rptr. ad andPotter v. Hugues, Potter v. Hughes, 546 F.3d F.3d 1051 1051 (9 (9th Cir. Cir.2008). 2008). The latter case concerns
corporations; thus, corporations, thus, the the Court Courtfinds finds itit unhelpful unhelpfulto to this thisanalysis. analysis. As As for for Briley, Bailey, the the California California
court recognized that administrative proceedings recognized that proceedings are are informal, informal, and and that persons complained of persons complained of
are commonly involved involved in in the the grievance grievance process. process. 281 281 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. ad 3d at at 69 (citing citing Gal v. City of Gai v. of
Selma, 79 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. 2d ad 910,914 910, 914(Ct. (Ct.App. App. 1998)) ("Thestandard l998)) ("The standard of ofimpartiality impartialityrequired required at at an an
administrative hearing is less exacting than that thatrequired requiredin inaajudicial proceeding.")- "The right judicial proceeding.").
to a fair and impartial impartial tribunal tribunalisisnot notviolated violated merely merely because becausethe theofficial official who made the initial made the
disciplinary decision has thefinal has the final say sayin inthe theadministrative administrativeprocess." process."Id. In solving Id. In solving when when bias bias
reaches an unacceptable unacceptablelevel, level, the the California California court court determined that relevant factors in examining
bias included substantial substantialanimosity animosity and andthe theconnection connectionbetween betweenthe the reviewer's reviewer's character character and and
conduct to to the the proceeding. proceeding. The TheCourt Courtalready alreadyperformed performedthis this analysis analysis on on particular particular members of
the Grievance Committee Committee and and found no no merit in the the allegations allegations of individual bias.
To the extent Bailey `u1troducesany Briley introduces any test test ofofsystemic systemicbias, bias,which whichititdoes doesnot notdo doexplicitly, explicitly,
the Court infers it to be the the following following standard: standard: when when the "probability "probability of ofactual actual bias bias is too high
to be constitutionally tolerable." tolerable." 281 281Cal. Cal.Rptr. Rptr.ad 3datat70. 70.Under Underthis thisbenchmark, benchmark, the the Court Court does
not find find that the the Grievance Committee Committee members' members' employment employmentpredetermined predetermined them them to to possess possess
bias. Again, bias. Again, as as conceded conceded in Briley, Bailey, people employed employed with with an an agency normally take take part in
administrative tribunals, tribunals, and andtheir theirmere mereemployment employment does does not not render renderthem themdisqualified. disqualified. Strader Strader
introduces no no facts facts beyond the the Grievance Committee Committee members' members' employment employmentand and positions positions under under
Moylan Moylan and and Guthrie that would automatically bestow bias.
Nor does Nor does the the Court find that Guthrie's positions, and andlater laterMoylan's Moylan's positions, were
unreasonable. The record displays both individuals' unreasonable. extensive efforts individuals' extensive efforts to to address address Straders' Straders' noise
ORIG!Ni\L g' / SP0061-25 SP006I-25 FOR JUDICIAL DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Page II Page 11 REVIEW REVIEW
to hostility concerns, while balancing potential impacts relative to workplace. The Court hostility in the workplace.
Strader; does not find there to be any evidence that Guthrie or Moylan were biased against Strader,
instead, they appeared to have tried earnestly to keep him on board and content with his
of performance. workplace surroundings so that he could continue with his acceptable level of
Since neither Guthrie nor Moylan treated Strader Strider unfairly, even assuming the Grievance
rubber-stamped either Committee lubber-stamped person's decisions, either person's there isis no decisions, there bias to no bias be found throughout this to be
process afforded to Strader.
III. 111. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
While the Court finds that bias can justify invoking the futility exception to the justify involdng
of administrative remedies rule, the Court finds that Strader exhaustion of Strider has not established any
bias by any OAG decisionmaker aker ororsystemic systemicbias the OAG. within the bias within TheCourt OAG. The therefore DENIES Courttherefore
Strider's Strader's Petition Petition for for Judicial Review.
SO ORDERED, ORDERED, 23 23 October October 2025.
ILYZEM. HON. ·:r.,vzE M IRIARTE IRIARTE Jud§é,:sgp.érjor\(8b\irt of Judg~,is~per-ior·.Cri~rt of Guam Guam '-- .. -.. ::- ...--:. ": _'::_ - - - --
Appearing Parties: Jay Matthew Matthew Strader, Strader, Esq., Petitioner (self-represented) Joseph A. A. Guthrie, Esq., Esq., Chief Respondent Office Chief Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent of the Attorney Office of General Respondent Civil Service Commission Fred Nishihira, Esq., for Respondent
r
ORIGINAL X