Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Thomas E. Freeman, Jr., Petitioner v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

No. 18-

.1

•

H.

H

:

I.

:.,:

:'

..

: :•

:••

.:

..

:

: THOMAS

.: .

: ..

::

.

.

:.

..

iuttb

:

..

.. ....PETITIONER,. ••.

H

.

.•••

.

::

.

.

••

H

..

•:;.

..•

..

:

.

RESPONDENT.::

:• •

:

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI To THE

::. : SUPREME COURT OF: NORTH CAROLINA

•

:

...............

V..

..........

•:

'tatr

E. FREEMAN, JR.,

NORTH. CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

: •

::

••

•

•

:

:

.,

' In The

'uprmc Court of t!jt

•

:.

:...

..

..

•.

•.

.

..

:•

.

••

:: :.......

•

..

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

H

j.

•H..

:1 :

...:

ThOiiiãsEFreemah,Prose

11084

Durham, NC 27703

(919) 423 2965

H

REC

JUL ii 2018

oppic

S0PR FiIC

URCLEK

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC Washington DC • 202 747-24 0 • legaiprinters corn

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitutional Provisions

:

Page(s)

U S Const , Amend V

2, 4

U S Const , Amend XIV

2, 4

Statutes

:1.: ..

............

;..

NC Gen Stat 7A75

3

N C Gen Stat 150B

3

Rules.......

.

.

,.

Supreme Court Rule 14

Other. Authorities ..............

1

....

.

....

N.C. DHHS Directive Number 111-8

3

NC DHHS Policies and Procedures Section V

2

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES:

JURISDICTION AND OPINIONS BELOW

Thomas E. Freeman, Jr., Pro Se, respectfully

petitions the Supreme Court of the United States to

issue its writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 of the

Supreme Court of the United States to review the

order of dismissal with prejudice of the Honorable

Donald W. Overby, Administrative Hearings Law

Judge, North Carolina Office of Administrative

Hearings dated 14 December, 2016; the order of

dismissal of the Honorable Judge McGee, Honorable

Judge Dillon and Honorable Judge Stroud, North

Carolina Court of Appeals dated 5 December, 2017;

and the order dismissed Ex Mero Motu of the

Honorable Justices, Supreme Court of North Carolina

dated 11 April, 2018 and in support of this petition

shows the following:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 28 October 2015, the petitioner received a

disciplinary action in the form of a written warning

for unacceptable personal conduct. Specifically for 1)

conduct for which no reasonable person should expect

to receive prior warning; 2) conduct unbecoming a

State employee that is detrimental to the State

service, and 3) the willful violation of a known or

written work rule (i.e. the Whitaker PRTF Time and

Attendance Policy) for excessive absences that was

signed by the residential supervisor and medical

director.

1

The petitioner was not informed of the appeal

rights. However, the petitioner was told that the

petitioner may write a letter "To the File" stating the

petitioner's point of view of the matter and if the

petitioner chose to do so, forward the letter to the

employee relations specialist within fifteen calendar

days of receipt of the written warning and that the

petitioner's letter will be placed in the petitioner's file

along with the written warning.

*

*NC DHHS Policies and Procedures: Section

V (Human Resources) Title (Human Relations)

Chapter (Disciplinary Action) 1/28/08.

On 12 November 2015, the petitioner hand

delivered the report of suspected violation of the 5th

and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution in the

matter of the written warning to the employee

relations specialist and submitted the report to the

receptionist in Human Resources to be placed in the

personnel file.

**

U.S. Const. amend. V

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, section 1

On 31 May 2016, the petitioner hand delivered

a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Central

Regional Hospital.

On 21 June 2016, The CEO wrote a response.

On 27 June, the petitioner submitted a report

of suspected failure of the residential supervisor and

medical director to follow procedural and substantive

due process. Also, the petitioner requested mediation.

2

**N.C. DHHS Directive Number 111-8, Title:

Employee Grievance Policy, July 01, 2012, Authority:

G.S. 143B-10, Chapter 126.

On 14 July 2016, The CEO wrote a response.

On 21 October 2016, the petitioner filed a

petition for a contested case hearing before the North

Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings. The

petitioner subpoenaed six witnesses and requested

oral arguments. Before the hearing could occur, the

case was dismissed with prejudice.

**

N.C. Gen. Stat. 150B

**N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-750

On 13 January 2017, the petitioner filed a

petition to present oral arguments with the North

Carolina Court of Appeals.

On 5 December 2017, the case was dismissed.

On 12 January 2018, the petitioner filed an

Appeal as a Matter of Right with the Supreme Court

of North Carolina.

On 11 April 2018, the case was "Dismissed Ex

Mero Motu".

REASONS WHY WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

First and foremost, there is a suspected

violation of the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S.

Constitution in regards to procedural and substantive

due process by person(s) associated with the North

Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

in this matter.

3

According to the DHHS policy manual, the

petitioner is subject to all North Carolina Office of

State Personnel disciplinary and grievance policies

and procedures and enjoys all appeal rights under

state law and policy and DHHS policy, including

appeal (although not necessarily direct appeal) to the

NC Office of State Personnel.

This does not appear to have occurred in this

case.

How this raises substantial Constitutional

questions and raises issues of significant public

interest is that State employees have an interest in

ensuring that agencies follow the procedures by which

laws are applied and must be even handed so that

individuals are not subject to the arbitrary and

capricious exercise of government power.

Is it to be determined whether or not Whitaker

PRTF, Central Regional Hospital and the North

Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

violated the 5th and 14th amendments of the U. S.

Constitution in regards to procedural due process and

substantive due process?

Is it to be determined whether or not the North

Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings ensured

that the administrative actions taken by North

Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

were made in a just and correct manner in order to

protect the due process rights of the petitioner who

challenged those actions?

Is it to be determined whether or not the North

Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings ERRED

in the admission or exclusion of evidence and witness

testimony, to the prejudice of the petitioner?

Is it to be determined whether or not the North

Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings ERRED

in dismissing the contested case with prejudice?

Is it to be determined whether or not the North

Carolina Court of Appeals ERRED in dismissing the

case?

Is it to be determined whether or not the

Supreme Court of North Carolina ERRED by having

the petitioner's Appeal as a Matter of Right,

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu"?

CONCLUSION

The petitioner respectfully pleads to the

Supreme Court of the United States to issue its writ

of certiorari in an effort to support and defend the

U.S. Constitution in this matter by permitting the

petitioner's Appeal as a Matter of Right.

Respectfully Submitted,

Thomas E. Freeman, Jr.,

Pro se

P.O. Box 11084

Durham, NC 27703

(919) 423-2965

5