Judge denies govt motion to substitute itself as defendant in Christian’s suit

The federal court yesterday denied the CNMI government’s motion to substitute itself for Dr. Francois Claassens and Rota Department of Public Safety director Eusebio Manglona as defendant in a lawsuit filed by Kaye Christian, a woman who was diagnosed to have a mental illness and is suing the government and others for allegedly handcuffing her before injecting her with medication.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona ruled that because the Involuntary Civil Commitment Act and the Patient’s Rights Act create private rights of action, and the Reform Act is not the exclusive means of enforcing private rights of action against individuals, the Commonwealth cannot substitute itself for Claassens and Manglona.

In a nine-page ruling, Manglona noted that when a CNMI government employee or the Commonwealth commits a negligent act within the scope of his office or employment, the Commonwealth waives its immunity to suit—with certain exceptions and limitations—to the injured plaintiff.

However, the judge pointed out, because the Commonwealth routinely fails to pay judgments entered against it and caps damages at $200,000, plaintiffs sometimes bring suit against a CNMI employee in his individual—and therefore unlimited—capacity, even when the employee was acting within the scope of his official authority.

Manglona said to sidestep such cases and the resulting expense of defending multiple employees in the same lawsuit, the legislature passed the Commonwealth Employees’ Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 2006 (Reform Act).

The Reform Act allows the CNMI to be substituted in place of its employees in individual capacity lawsuits upon certification of the Attorney General that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment.

However, the judge said, the Reform Act is not the exclusive remedy for causes of action created by other statutes.

“In other words, if another statute creates a private right of action, then the plaintiff suing to enforce that statute is not bound by the Reform Act,” she pointed out.

In Christian’s lawsuit, the CNMI seeks to substitute itself in the place of defendants Claassens and Manglona in their individual capacities as to three claims of the complaint for alleged violations of the Involuntary Civil Commitment Act and the Patient’s Rights Act.

In her opposition, Christian, through counsel, argues that both statutes create a private cause of action.

In agreeing with Christian, Manglona said because the Involuntary Civil Commitment Act and the Patient’s Rights Act each create a private right of action, the Reform Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for Christian’s alleged harms.

According to court documents, Christian sued Claassens and then-police sergeant and now DPS Rota director Eusebio Manglona for their role in her involuntary civil detention from Dec. 31, 2013 to Jan. 3, 2014.

Christian alleges that Eusebio Manglona seized her from her home without cause and brought her to the Rota Health Center, where Claassens, the resident physician, improperly ordered her to be detained for a mental health evaluation.

In one claim, Christian seeks damages from Claassens because he allegedly “illegally detained plaintiff in violation of her rights under the Involuntary Civil Commitment Act, by involuntarily detaining plaintiff when she was not a danger to herself or others and there was no recent overt act within the prior 24 hours that plaintiff was a danger to herself or others.”

In the other claim, Christian asserts that Eusebio Manglona and Claassens are liable for damages because they allegedly “chemically restrain[ed] plaintiff [and] deprived plaintiff of her right to be free from chemical restraint [as] protected by the Patient’s Rights Act.”

In the third claim, Christian seeks damages against Eusebio Manglona for allegedly “handcuffing plaintiff to the bed at the Rota Health Center and holding plaintiff down while defendant Claassens administered shots, depriving plaintiff of her right to be free from physical restrained [as protected by the Patient’s Rights Act.”

In denying the CNMI government’s motion, Manglona said constitutional claims and claims based on a statute that creates a private cause of action are not precluded by the Reform Act, which means that this substitution pursuant to that Act would be improper.

The judge said if the Involuntary Civil Commitment Act and the Patient’s Rights Act establish a private right of action, substitution is improper and must be denied regardless of whether Eusebio Mangona and Claassens were acting in an official capacity.

Aside from Claassens and Eusebio Manglona, Christian, through counsels Jeanne H. Rayphand and Matthew Holley, also sued the CNMI government and Commonwealth Healthcare Corp.