Dismiss suit vs. Ingram, Zachares

The CNMI government has asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss a civil suit filed against three public officials over the prison hostage incident in March last year, saying that they can not be held personally liable for criminal acts of the inmates.

Public Safety Commissioner Charles Ingram, Labor and Immigration Sec. Mark Zachares and Division of Corrections Director Greg Castro “should be commended, not sued” for their efforts to resolve the crisis, the government said in documents submitted to the court Monday.

The three are defendants to the complaint lodged in June by four Chinese nonresident workers, namely Xing Hao Cui, Chun Yan, Zhou Bo, Ting Hua Wang, demanding punitive, compensatory and other damages for the incident that took place in March 9, 1999.

The plaintiffs, through lawyer G. Anthony Long, alleged in the suit that the CNMI officials were negligent in their duties for allowing them to be taken hostage during the 14-hour siege inside the male detention facility in Susupe.

The incident was staged by hard-core criminals demanding better prison conditions, but the four claimed these convicted felons should not have been placed at the detention facility since this area is only for detainees awaiting trial like them.

Because of the failure by these officials to ensure their safety, they were subjected to beating and death threats until the siege ended with the surrender of the six leaders, they said in their complaint.

Assistant Attorney General Robert Goldberg, who is representing the three officials even though they were sued personally, said the plaintiffs did not sue the persons who “terrorized” them.

“Instead, plaintiffs seek to hold public officials vicariously liable for the criminal acts of other detainees. Plaintiffs should look to the actual wrongdoers, not the CNMI taxpayers, for relief,” he said in court papers.

“The defendants did not harm plaintiffs in any manner,” he explained. “On the contrary, the defendants resolved the crisis peacefully and quickly without loss of life or serious injury. [They] should be commended, not sued, for their actions.”

Lack of facts

The government likewise sought the dismissal of the complaint as the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their allegations with specific facts to “present a clear, factual and legal basis” to hold the three public officials liable.

It also asked District Judge Alex R. Munson to order the four nonresident workers to post a $6,000 bond in order to secure payment of all costs of the action that they may be required to pay to the defendants under existing court rules.

Mr. Long, however, opposed the motion, which will be heard in the federal court on Aug. 31, saying that it will deprive his clients their rights to seek judicial relief.

“You are well aware that the plaintiffs lack the resources to post a cost bond,” he said in a letter to Mr. Goldberg. “Thus, the efforts to request a cost bond constitutes state action designed to deprive [them] their rights.”

In the second amended complaint filed by Mr. Long also on Monday, the plaintiffs are now demanding payment “jointly and severally” of damages amounting to at least $175,000 for each of the four in violations of their civil rights under the U.S. Constitution.

At the same time, they want a jury trial on their case that came more than 15 months following the prison incident which they claimed continue to burden them with emotional stress and other sufferings.