Manibusan certifies that two cops 
acted within scope of employment

Attorney General Edward Manibusan has certified that the two police officers in a police brutality lawsuit that was later caught on video acted within the scope of their employment at the time of the incident in 2016.

With the certification, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona ordered Thursday that police officers Carlo Evangelista and Stanley Patris be substituted as defendants by the Commonwealth in Vincent San Nicolas Norita’s claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

Manibusan filed last Sept. 7 the notices certifying that both Evangelista and Patris were acting within the scope of employment at the time of the incident alleged in Norita’s complaint.

Norita was slapped with a nine-year prison term in May 2017 for leading police officers in a 40-minute car chase in 2016. He filed last August a police brutality lawsuit in federal court against the Department of Public Safety, DPS Commissioner Robert A. Guerrero, and police officers Evangelista and Patris.

In his lawsuit, Norita, through counsel Rene C. Holmes, asked the court to hold the defendants liable to pay him damages.

Last Thursday, Manglona dismissed DPS from Norita’s lawsuit and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Norita’s causes of action—assault and battery against Evangelista and Patris; intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; and negligence against all defendants.

Manglona also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction constitutional claim against DPS, Guerrero, and 10 unnamed co-defendants.

With the dismissal, remaining causes of action in the lawsuit are Section 1983 claim (deprivation of rights) against the Commonwealth and official capacity defendants, in so far as it is for injunctive or declaratory relief only; and the Section 1983 claim against Evangelista and Patris, in their personal capacities (and official capacities, in so far as it is for injunctive or declaratory relief only).

The third remaining cause of action is Norita’s CNMI constitutional claim against Evangelista and Patris in their personal capacities.

Manglona dismissed all remaining three claims without prejudice.

Dismiss without prejudice means Norita can re-file the three claims.

In her order last Thursday, Manglona said the Commonwealth Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act was enacted to protect government employees from the expense of defending lawsuits arising out of acts performed within the scope of their employment.

Manglona said both CELTRA and the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act protect government employees by authorizing the AG to certify that an employee was acting within the scope of employment.

The judge said after certification, the government is substituted for the employee in the lawsuit and the proceeding continues in the same manner as any action against the government.

Manglona said once the government has been substituted, the litigation is thereafter governed by the Government Liability Act.

Manglona said Evangelista and Patris were both employed as police officers by DPS at all times relevant to this lawsuit.

The judge said Evangelista and Patris, along with other DPS officers, pursued and arrested Norita after a failed traffic stop.

Manglona said the facts as alleged by Norita indicate that Evangelista and Patris were engaged in police work at the time of the conduct in question.

Holmes stated in the complaint that on the evening of Dec. 9, 2016, a police officer saw a white car being driven fast on Beach Road.

The officer attempted a traffic stop on the car, which was driven by Norita. The passenger was Joe E. Ada.

Other officers joined in a pursuit of Norita and Ada, including officers Patris and Evangelista.

The lawyer said a bystander filmed Patris’ and Evangelista’s excessive beating of Norita and Ada with their batons.

Holmes said as a result, Norita suffered severe injuries on his head, back, arm, and leg.