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
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
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
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
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 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
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'
/
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