USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS JEFFREY HOWERTON ) S Ct Civ No 2020-0097 Appellant/Petitioner ) Re ST 2020 MC 00015 (STT) ) V ) ) V I OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT ) GOVERNOR DIVISION OF BANKING ) INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL ) REGULATION V I POLICE DEPARTMENT ) JOHN/JANE DOES l 100 ET AL ) Appellees Re§p9ndents ) 0n Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Division of St Thomas St John Superior Court Judge Hon Harold W L Willocks Filed September 7 2022 Considered May 10 2022 Cite as 2022 VI 19 BEFORE RHYS S HODGE Chief Justice MARIA M CABRET Associate Justice and [VE ARLINGTON SWAN Associate Justice APPEARANCES Jeffrey Howerton Pro Se Appellant Michael R Francisco, Esq Assistant Attorney General St Thomas, U S V I Attorneyfor Appellee OPINION OF THE COURT SWAN, Associate Justice l FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY $1 On March 20 2020, pro se Appellant Jeffrey Howerton (“Appellant”) filed a petition for writ ofmandamus in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands (S A 01) In his petition, Appellant targets three financial institutions, alleging a plethora of complaints and ultimately calling for an investigation of the financial institutions; namely, Banco Popular, Scotia Bank, and Trident Trust (correctly known as Trident Trust Company Virgin Islands) (S A 02 03) In his petition, Appellant asserts a myriad of grievances alleging Inter aha, that his complaints and communications with the financial institutions have gone unanswered and were inappropriately addressed (S A 02) Appellant begins his catalog ofgrievances by stating that he sent a complaint form targeting Trident Trust Company Virgin Islands to employees ofthe Office ofthe Lieutenant Governor namely Gwendolyn Brady and Glendina Matthew (S A 02) Appellant flirther contends that upon contacting the employees he determined that his communication was read, however, he received no response (S A 0”.) Appellant then proceeded to send a c0mplaint form regarding Banco P0pular to the Office of the Lieutenant Govemor (S A 02) ‘2 Following his Banco Popular submission Appellant was contacted via telephone by Shanda Albert (‘ Albert") who identified herself as an employee of the Lieutenant Governor 5 Office, Division of Banking Insurance and Financial Regulation (S A 02) Upon receiving a response by means of telephone from Albert Appellant sent additional messages to the Office of the Lieutenant Govemor through the ‘ Contact Us” section provided by the online services portal, to request that all communication be conducted through email (8 A 02) Albert then reached out to the Appellant through email informing him that she was contacting the Appellant regarding his banking complaint (8 A 27) In her emailed response Albert informed the Appellant that she had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact him via telephone (S A 27) Upon receiving Lieutenant Governor’s Office located on St Thomas to address his submissions and complaints (S A 27) Despite her address and further continuation of the Appellant s reference number to his complaint Appellant stated he believed the communication to be ‘hijacked and fraudulent ” (S A 02) Subsequent to his email interaction with Albert and Appellant’s conclusion that the communications were not authentic, Appellant forwarded his complaints to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) through their online database (S A 03) Upon that organization’s lack of response to his complaints, Appellant considered it “compromised” as well (S A 03) Afterwards, Appellant decided to submit by email a Professional Standards complaint to Chenelle Skcpple of the V I Police Department Again, Appellant claimed that the response he received was compromised (S A 03) Appellant asserts that he also submitted his concerns to the Office of the Virgin Islands Inspector General; however, he claims he was again met with silence (S A 03) Appellant attributes the lack ofresponse and lack of assistance by the government agencies to a number of his relatives in his home state ofCalifornia, as well as national luminaries, whom he claims have an ongoing conspiracy to ‘ target and torture" Appellant (See generally S A 0|) Specifically, as detailed in his petition, Appellant asserts that for decades he has been a target and victim of assault and stalking by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and their informants, including involuntary body modification during which technology was implanted in his skull, and that he was also a victim ofother atrocities including hate crimes, domestic abuse, and torture (S A 0|) Appellant further contends that these acts occurred in California and other states outside of the U S Virgin Islands (S A 04) 113 Following the plethora of Appellant 3 complaints filed with the aforementioned agencies and private business institutions, Appellant filed his petition for writ ofmandamus in the Superior review, the Superior Court ultimately denied Appellant s petition for a writ of mandamus In its order, the court concluded that Appellant failed to provide any evidentiary support of his claims and, thithermore, he failed to establish that he had a clear and indisputable right of relief as required for the granting of mandamus relief (S A 43) T4 On July 30 2020 the Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal ' (S A 36) In support of his appeal of the Superior Court 3 July 23 2020 order the Appellant submitted a one paragraph brief in which he requested that this Court review his petition and “view that document as [his] case for why the dismissal from the V I Supreme Court should permit the writ ofmandate [sic] ” (S A 104) For the following reasons, we affirm the Superior Court 5 order denying the Appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus II JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW T5 This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to title 4, section 32 of the Virgin Islands Code Under Section 32 this Court is granted jurisdiction over “all appeals arising from final judgments final decrees or final orders of the Superior Court[] V 1 CODE ANN tit 4 § 32(a) Since the Superior Court's July 23, 2020 order resolved all claims between the parties, it constitutes a final appealable judgment within the meaning of section 32(a) 2 Moorhead v Mapp, 62 V1 595 598 (VI 2015) (citing Weary v Long ReefCondo Assn 57 VI 163 165 (VI 2012)) “[T]he standard of review for this Court's examination of the Superior Court's application of law is plenary, while findings of fact are reviewed for clear error ’ Rawlms v People, 58 V I 261 268 (V I 2013) (Citing Sr Thomas—S! John Ba' ofEIecIions 1 Daniel 49 V I 322 329 (V I ' See v I R APP P 5(a)(l)( [Tlhc notice ofappeal required by Rule 4 shah be filed with the Clerk ofthe Superior Court withing thirty days after the date of entry ofJudgment or order appealed from ) See also VI Govt Hosp: & Health Facahties Corp v Gov I ofthe V I 50 V I 276 391 (VI 2008) ( A final iflggggtt'gecision, or order is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to do but execute the 2007)) For the reasons that follow, we hold that Appellant has failed to provide any argument and legal support required for relief in this Court, and has also failed to meet the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus [[1 DISCUSSION A Appellant Failed to Provide a Sufficient Argument or Support for Grounds on Which Relief May Be Granted ‘6 As a threshold matter we note that the Appellant failed to provide any legal support for his claim for mandamus relief Although appeilate courts “typically exercise some degree of leniency toward pro se litigants who lack formal legal training 3 we find that Appellant’s petition and subsequent brief on appeal are fatally deficient, therefore, the petition and brief leave this Court with very little leeway and limited options to consider in terms of Appellant’s claims and arguments On February 12 2021, Appellant filed “Appellant 5 Opening Brief" which consisted ofonly one paragraph which simply asked this Court to review the same petition he filed with the Superior Court as constituting the sole basis for his argument on appeal Blatantly obvious in Appellant’s petition was the lack of any legal analysis or support as to why this Court should find in its review that the Superior Court erred when it denied the Appellant petition for a writ of mandamus W Regarding the structure and the content of the Appellant s brief Rule 22 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the required construction and specifications of ’ Wear} v Long ReefCondo Ass n 57 V l 163 I67 (V I 2012)‘ Kurska v California State College 564 F 2d 108 briefs for appeals before this Court Rule 22(a), governing the brief of the Appellant, provides in part that a brief shall have the following “(1) A table of contents, with page references, and a table of cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes, and other authorities cited, with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited (2) A statement of subject matter and appellate jurisdiction (3) A statement of the issues presented for review and standard of review (4) A statement of the case (5) An argument The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant With respect to each of the issues presented and the reasons therefor With eilatzons to the authorities statutes and pans of the recon! relied on (6) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought ” VI R APP P 22(a) (emphases added) 118 It is undeniable that Appellant’s brief has failed to comply with the rules prescribed by this Court as his brief lacks any of the required components The most notable missing component is a discernable legal argument In his brief, Appellant completely fails to enumerate any issues or reasons, with proper citations to pertinent legal authorities, upon which this Court may rely to evaluate the merits of his claim for mandamus relief In other words, Appellant failed to cite to any legal precedent or caselaw, or provide an iota or modicum of foundation for his request for a writ of mandamus While we read the filings ofpro se litigants charitably, affording them the benefit of an extreme[ly] liberal reading,’ Carrillo v CmMorIgage Inc , 63 V I 670, 679 (V l 2015), merely offering a regurgitated argument from the petition for a writ of mandamus on appeal is not sufficient grounds for overturning the Superior Court 3 ruling that denied the petition Not only has Appellant failed to offer any basis to reverse the Superior Court’s order in his filed brief, but upon review of his petition, it also fails to warrant mandamus relief Rule 22(m) provides that “issues that were (1) not raised or objected to before the Superior Court, (2) raised or objected to but not briefed, or (3) are only adverted to in a perfimctory manner or unsupported by argument and citation to legal authority, are deemed waived for purposes ofappeal ' V I R APP P 22(m) Appellant 3 lack of briefing and authoritative support of his position leaves his argument waived 1|9 In reviewing Appellant’s petition, two (2) things become obvious (1) Appellant failed to raise any properly supported issue for adjudication, and (2) the Appellant failed to establish any meaningful legal ground for relief 0f the 25 pages that comprise the Appellant's brief, excluding exhibits, only the first three pages outline any relation to activities originating in the Virgin Islands However, even within those three pages, Appellant fails to establish a nexus between himself and the institutions from which he seeks an unidentified relief Appellant has failed to provide any evidence that he is a customer of any of the institutions to which he has submitted complaints nor has he provided any evidence of a substantial claim against them Even within the Sparsity of information that Appellant has provided, he still fails to plead a basis for relief for which the Appellees may be responsible A major part of Appellant’s petition is consumed by a discussion of alleged personal traumas and vendettas caused by individuals and entities that have nothing to do with this Territory Except for the asserted grievances, within the first few pages of his petition, Appellant expended very little time addressing his interaction with the Appellees, the base connection or cause for his claim, or demonstrating how he is generally entitled to mandamus relief Even more egregious, neither in his terse brief or in his reoffered petition, has Appellant provided an argument to confirm that any error was made by the Superior Court in its denial of his petition for writ of mandamus While the appellate briefs filed by pro se litigants, like pro se pleadings, are ‘ interpreted with considerable lenience because the[ir authors] lack formal legal training,’ and as a policy matter, the Court “give[s] pro se litigants greater leeway in dealing with matters of procedure and pleading, ’ Clarke v Lopez, 73 V I 512, 516 (2020) (quoting Marsh It does not extend so far to ‘ allow a party to ignore or defy the rules of procedural and substantive law ” Construction Techmcmns v szch American Ins ( o , 6] VI 153, 157 n 3 (VI 2014) (quoting Simpson v Golden 56 V I 272, 280 (V I 2012)) While it permits an appellate court to reach an argument that is raised on appeal but inadequately supported, Appleton v Harrigan, 61 V I 262, 267 (V I 2014), it does not require the appellate court to “raise new arguments sua sponte on behalf of a pro se litigant ” Marsh Monsanto, 66 V I at 376 (quoting Flemmg v Cruz, 62 V I 702, 722 (V I 2015) (Cabret J , concurring» Accordingly we decline to engage in that exercise on Appellant s behalf here B Appellant Failed to Show That He is Entitled to Relief by Writ of Mandamus 1110 In accordance with Virgin Islands jurisprudence ‘ a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy which should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances In 7e Elliot, 54 V I 423, 428 (V l 2010) (quoting In re LeBlanc 49 V I 508 516 (V l 2008)) In order to obtain a writ it is essential for a petitioner to establish there is no other adequate means to attain the desired relief" and furthermore that there is a clear and indisputable right ” Id However even if it should be determined that the first two prerequisites have been satisfied, “the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances In re Flemmg 56 V I 460 464 (V I 2012) (quoting Cheney v U S DIS! Courtfor D C 542 U S 367 380 81 (2004)) Moreover [w]here there are practical avenues for seeking relief that are untried this Court will ordinarily deny a petition for mandamus Id (quoting In re Patenaude, 210 F 2d 135 141 (3d Cir 2000)) For the reasons that follow we hold that Appellant has utterly failed to meet the requirements for relief under a writ of mandamus fill 1 Though it is sufficient to affirm the Superior Court's ruling on the basis of Appellant’s lack Appellant’s short assertion that he is still entitled to reliefby a writ of mandamus Here, Appellant sought a writ of mandamus from the Superior Court to compel Appellees to not only respond to his complaint, but to do so using his requested medium, email In his keynote and solitary argument on appeal, the Appellant contends that his petition for writ of mandamus is appropriate and that the Superior Court erred in its denial because he has no other adequate means to obtain relief In his petition, Appellant recounts his complaints lodged with financial institutions Banco Popular, Scotia Bank and Trident Trust Company Virgin Islands, as well as his interaction with the Appellees and their representative as he sought to have his complaints addressed in his preferred medium However, as the Appellant was ensuring that he clarified and organized his many communications, both submitted and received, he also made it clear that he had not exhausted all means to obtain relief 1112 The most conspicuous pieces of evidence to highlight this point are the multiple telephone calls the Appellant stated he received after submitting his complaints and the emailed interaction between the Appellant and an employee for Appellee, Shanda Albert Here, we are made well aware that the Appellant did not exhaust all means ofreliefas he was given (I) the option to resolve his issues by telephone and (2) the option to visit Appellee’s office to resolve his complaints in person which Appellant failed to do The law is undisputed When assessing whether relief is appropriate for a writ of mandamus, the law does not revolve around what the Appellant finds suitable in terms of relief The law is well established that there must be no other adequate means to obtain the desired relief Here, Appellant did not have just one, but two other adequate fomis of relief, one ofwhich offered the Appellant the opportunity to handle any and all of his concerns in person Since Appellant has not satisfied this prerequisite for relief by a writ of mandamus, he It is paramount to highlight that relief granted by writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring extraordinary circumstances None of Appellant’s filings or contentions meets this standard Because of the evident nature of the Appellant s inability to meet these requirements for a writ ofmandamus, we do not find it necessary to analyze the application further IV CONCLUSION '113 We conclude that the Superior Conn did not err when it denied the Appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus In its order, the Superior Court fully considered the unsupported assertions made by the Appellant, thus demonstrating its careful consideration of his application Upon review, Appellant not only failed to state and support an adequate ground for relief, thus waiving any identified issues under the rules of this Court but also failed to meet the standards for the issuance of a writ ofmandamus The Appellant had multiple avenues for pursuing his sought aftei relief, I e , that his complaints be addressed, and from which reliefcould be obtained The evidence and claims provided by the Appellant show that remedies were suggested and provided by telephone and encouraged in person Absent a showing of an extraordinary circumstance for which he may be entitled to relief, the Appellant’s request is denied and the Superior Court 3 July 23, 2020 order is affirmed 4” Dated this 7 day of September, 2022 BY THE COURT /—ma;mj;% Associate Justice ATTEST VERONICA J HANDY ESQ Clerk of e Court By: RAN— Deputy Clerk II Dated i 7 02 OK