DOC officer demands jury trial in suit filed by inmate

One of the Department of Corrections officers facing a constitutional rights lawsuit filed by an inmate has demanded that the court grant him a trial by jury in this case.

Following the court’s recent decision to deny his bid to have the case dismissed, DOC officer Damien Deleon Guerrero has asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to grant him a trial by jury, “pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” according to his counsel, assistant attorney general Carl Dela Cruz.

Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona previously denied Deleon Guerrero’s motion to dismiss the charges filed against him by inmate Clifford J. Palacios.

Palacios is suing Deleon Guerrero, among other DOC officials, for allegedly violating his constitutional rights and negligence.

According to court documents, Palacios is suing DOC’s Kelvin Simina and De Leon Guerrero for allegedly ordering that he be diverted back to DOC custody while he was on his way to the Commonwealth Health Center following a brutal fight between him and another inmate.

By allegedly ordering that he be diverted back to DOC instead of allowing him to get treated at CHC, Palacios claims his constitutional rights were violated and DOC officers neglected their duty.

However, according to Deleon Guerrero’s lawyer, Dela Cruz, his client should be dismissed from the lawsuit because even if the allegation are considered true, the complaint fails to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.”

“This is because the complaint is devoid of any allegation that Damien’s conduct amounted to a ‘deprivation’ within the meaning of the Constitution. Thus, the complaint on its face fails to make a plausible claim for relief and making dismissal of the complaint appropriate,” said the lawyer.

Also, Dela Cruz argued that his client is entitled to immunity.

“While the issue before the court involves important and often competing interests—the interest in protecting a pretrial detainee’s 14th Amendment Due Process Clause rights and the interest in protecting public employees from ‘disabling’ suits—the plaintiff has utterly failed to plead sufficient facts to show that Damien deprived him of his Due Process Clause rights. Therefore, Damien is deserving of dismissal and should not bear the burden and costs of discovery and litigation on the basis of such deficient complaint,” he said.