Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tsuji v. Hawaii

oe 2

os

en.

f

982.580 yay 259

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

—~

,

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

Stanley R. Tsuji, Pro Se@-PETITIONER

(Your Name)

VS.

State Of Hawaii, et al—RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS-FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF

YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Stanley R. Tsuji

(Your Name)

P.O. Box 778

(Address)

Honolulu, Hawaii 96808

(City, State, Zip Code)

(808) 537-4688

(Phone Number)

*

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. The main issue that the United States Court of Appeals-

For the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.) failed to recognize was the

deliberate, blatant & horrendous damaging of peoples health by

the Respondents Beryl Iramina, Glen Hisashima, George Iranon,

et al., running into the thousands and increasing by the minute

being this is a housing facility and workplace. And their fiduciary

duty to be that protection as a judiciary body. Complaint Exhibit

(3), Division of Occupational Safety & Health, State of Hawaii

Report (6-1-89).

2. The 9th Cir. did a reckless and incomplete review of

this case-footnote ' Appendix A-' “We decline to consider the

remainder of Tsuji’s contentions because they are raised for the

first time on appeal.”

3. The 9th Cir. failed to recognize the Petitioner’s Stanley

Tsuji’s qualification under the Protected Class under Breathing

under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was under doctors

care and did not just place myself on sick leave. Complaint

Exhibits (2, 5-6), Dr. Craig Kadooka, M.D. (6-5-89), Dr. Edward

K. Lau, M.D. (5-26-92) & Dr. Leigh Sakamaki, M.D.’s medical

certificates (5-27-92). (Irreversible & Life-threatening Lung

Damage).

4. The 9th Cir. failed to recognize the conspiracy by

Respondents inflicted onto the Petitioner covered under 42 U.S.C.

1985(3) in the form of threats, Discrimination, unfair labor

practices, violation of my doctors order 3, etc. Complaint Exhibits

and Plaintiff Exhibit Addendum (10-12, 14). Seniority violations,

threats, slander. Using inmates as human weapons. This case also

falling under the classification of Disability Discrimination.

5. The 9th Cir. erred in not reversing the lower courts

ruling denying reinstatement under 29 U.S.C. 660(c), in light that

the Petitioner Tsuji had given the Respondents many notices and

was & is still presently under doctors care for this case, being

excused from the closed air environment. Complaint Exhibits (2,

5-6), Dr. Craig Kadooka, M.D. (6-5-89), Dr. Edward K. Lau,

M.D. (5-26-92) & Dr. Leigh Sakamaki, M.D.’s (5-27-92) medical

certificates.

6. The 9th Cir. may have violated the Petitioner Tsuji’s

14th Amendment rights, a formal request was made with a U.S.

congressional representative from Hawaii to invoke the 14th

Amendment as it may apply to this case, the Petitioner Tsuji will

keep this court apprised of the latest developments. Colgate v.

Harvey, 296 U.S.-404, 56 S.Ct. 252, 80 L.Ed. 299 (1935).

7. The 9th Cir. failed to recognize the Respondents

blatant & continued violation of the Federal Consent Decree in the

operation of a safe correctional facility in terms of health

concerns. Complaint Exhibit (3), Division of Occupational Safety

& Health, State of Hawaii Report (6-1-89).

8. Operating an unsafe correctional facility is also in

violation of the following federal and state health & safety laws

29 C.F.R. 1903.13, 1910.94(vi), H.R.S. 396-6.

9. The 9th Cir. failed to recognize this case as a Class-

Action.

10. The 9th Cir. failed to recognize the Respondents

violation of Federal and State Whistleblowers’ Protection Statutes

42 U.S.C. 1985(3), 29 U.S.C. 660(c), 29 C.F.R. 1630.4,

1630.12(a), (b), H.R.S. 378-62.

11. The 9th Cir. failed to apply the doctrine of Res Ipsa-

Locquitur to this case.

12. The 9th Cir. allowed the Respondents to Violate a

Clear Mandate of Public Policy in further victimizing the

Petitioner, Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 652

P.2d 625 (1982).

13. The 9th Cir. failed to recognize the Respondents

violation of collective bargaining agreements with the Petitioners

union representative, the United Public Worsers-Unit 10 under

ee

Seniority, Vacation Leave, Sick Leave. Plaintiff Exhibit

Addendum (25).

14. A memo from Beryl Iramina to Wayne Tanaka dated

April 19, 1993 Complaint Exhibit (20), clearly illustrates Ms.

Iramina’s fear and avoidance of not having an air-quality re-test of

the Punahele complex as recommended by Dr. Sakamaki,

Complaint Exhibit (6) — this being 11 months after her work order

Complaint Exhibit (1) and ] day before the Labor board hearing

on April 20, 1993 Appendix E and in reference to Complaint

Exhibit (3) air-quality tests conducted at the Punahele complex on

6-1-89.

Also Beryl Iramina never submitted any work order or

documentation to ascertain that work was done to the vents and

the replacement of the air chiller at the Punahele complex as she

claims. Complain Exhibit (1).

I was on duty up until 5-21-92, when this alleged vent

work was supposedly completed, there were never any old or new

vents and replaced air chiller in the vicinity or any signs of

construction work being done to the Punahele complex at that

time. Complaint Exhibit (1).

15. Beryl Iramina in Complaint Exhibit (1) also failed to

address the fungal growth problem and circulating airborne fungal

spores as stated in Complaint Exhibit (3) growing in the vents.

It is scientifically recognized that the only way to control

fungal growth in a closed air ventilation system is to install a

chlorine filter that disinfects the re-circulated moisture. No

chlorine filter was ever installed in the Punahele complex.

16. The Statutes of Limitation will not begin until the

Respondents can prove that the Punahele complex is made safe

for human habitation as addressed in the air quality tests on 6-1-89

Complaint Exhibit (3) for all related issues presented by the

Petitioner. Inmate housing & work safety being the main issue.

17. 1 did not just place myself on sick leave as the

Respondents and their representatives contend. I sought and

received 3 medical recommendations excusing me from work due

to the unsafe air-quality problem and previous life-threatening

lung damage. Complaint Exhibits (2-3, 5, 6) & Appendices E and

F.

18. A person’s health is the most important thing in their

life. I should not be forced or manipulated to compromise my

health as I have been horrendously forced in this case.

It is time to bring light to this malicious cover-up. The

health and welfare of many people’s lives is counting on justice to

prevail, besides my own.

The bottom line is supposed to be work safety as the main

priority.

The Respondents and their representatives, separately &

collectively have made a blatant and malicious mockery out of

enacted federal and state work safety standards for civil service

employment.

To be forced to suffer further life threatening lung damage

is absurd & ludicrous, on top of all the horrific atrocities that the

Respondents and their representatives have inflicted against my

family and myself all of these 10 extremely arduous,

unconscionably tormented years. Something not even a convicted

criminal has to go through.

It’s not fair or just that I be crucified in this haciindons

manner for the Respondents blatant and inexcusable negligence &

incompetence.

IE Nah EE NAAR Siac Se 88S SET ie SO RI

Metis.

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ x] All parties dc) nSt agpear in the caption of the case on the

cover page. A list of ali parties to the proceeding in the court

whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

Petitioners-All persons adversely affected from exposure to the

carcinogens in the closed air environment at the Hawaii

Community Correctional Center-Punahele Complex-60 Punahele

Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720.

Respondents-Beryl Iramina, Glen Hisashima, George Iranon,

Department of Public Safety, et al.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORI SIRI shisncthacsesssesbaadicbe tues tinsid cteabincbdosectivetotestnentonas 9

FTE IN elcid ecicbanisicindnsarcshssccianvebn Gscakictrcibabeactoiseiniadts 1]

COINS Fe Oe CRIs TOD echinascssiciaacicccentiidecscsieteosdbosssbassedieecsens 13

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATOR E CP Fetes CABG oeicssiscrcescktisecosceectvivicedeiavessestivhesbace 14

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..000...ccceccecesceeseeeeseeee 15

CEFR ANNES vncthetiistiintiniariieidntiedaanspicece tebe 15

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Decision by the United States Court of Appeals-

For the Ninth Circuit dated October 26, 1998.

APPENDIX B - Decision by the United States District Court -

District of Hawaii dated 10-15-97.

APPENDIX C - Decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court dated

July 25, 1996.

APPENDIX D - Decision by the Labor & Industrial Relations

Appeals Board dated 8-11-95.

APPENDIX E - Decision by the Dept. of Labor & Industrial

Relations dated June 18, 1993.

APPENDIX F - Decision by the Dept. of Labor & Industrial

Relations dated 3-9-90 for an earlier, but related

case.

ee Oe

gre

My ne ee oe ON ee

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES PAGE NUMBER

Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. .............:00+00++. 4

370, 652 P.2d 625 (1982).

Blaylock v. Schwinden, 862 F.2d 1352 . ........ccccsceseeeeeees 13

(9th Cir.-1988).

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 56 S.Ct. 252... 3

80 L.Ed. 299 (1935).

STATUTES AND RULES

Sr , MAMIE DEE ¥ seincssutduceshinnsbveinssacasenwessionesins 3, 10

BUR NIE OY a scones seiasipiagiieiianseabinaibssbadiorithyctavutens 9

OE Eos. CID Rnistits:kicds in vin asinesias das anepiasnsonnneqnanntetin 2, 4, 10

FO TET TY aon ceckaataasearseoenibaahecnapine 3, 4, 10, 13

FO CF RR: TFUS.1S, TIO SAGE) icccseesssicatesnenseeteossacetenss 3, 10

2 CP TR TG, TGS ER OY ait sssansb ea penpersestignicn 4,10

PR FT caics recites ctentnccotevciacalscenistedinvecintaiebvonnss 10

EERE AT i arclar ee cag ahe Wb alk OMAR TROP AUN 3, 10

PIED BUDD a coset scccscsussdouei nivesssascenaaaiinaapnaiieadaaii 10, 13

I ON a in ase core Sh snctias comkhet din Lgceocabslinibacn 4,10

I Ros cog csc hn she cdapeanasavecthensinonosnndntehines 10, 13

OTHER

Se Oe ae Dc IF Ricastidssed coterestnsanaannazenecnonss 4

Res Ipsa Locquitur at-1305 (6th Ed. 1991).

Ae tla omeenes

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1998

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to

review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ x] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears

at Appendix A to the petition and is

[ ] reported at ; Or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet

reported; or, |

[x] is unpublished. a

The opinion of the United States district court appears at

Appendix B to the petition and is

{ ] reported at ; Or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet

reported; or,

[x] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits

appears at Appendix ____to the petition and is

i

{ ] reported at ; OF,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet

reported; or,

{ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the court appears

at Appendix to the petition and is

{ ] reported at ; OF,

{ } has been designated for publication but is not yet

reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals

decided my case was October 26, 1998.

[x] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the

United States Court of Appeals on the following date:

, and a copy of the order denying

rehearing appears at Appendix _.

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of

certiorari was granted to and including

(date) on

(date) in Application No. A-

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case

was . A copy of that decision

appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied

on the following date: , and a

copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of

certiorari was granted to and including

‘nate

(date) on

(date) in Application No. A-

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, subsection 1, para. 4, Citizens or

entities protected

Americans with Disabilities Act

42 U.S.C. 1985(3) Depriving persons of rights

29 U.S.C. 660(c) Discharge or discrimination

29 C.F.R. 1903.13 Imminent Danger

29 C.F.R. 1910.94(vi) Clean air

29 C.F.R. 1630.4 (b), (e), (i) Discrimination Prohibited

29 C.F.R. 1630.9 Not making reasonable accommodations

29 C.F.R. 1630.12 (a), (b) Retaliation and Coercion

Hawaii Revised Statutes

H.R.S. 386-25 Vocational Rehabilitation

H.R.S. 378-62 Whistleblowers’ Protection Act

H.R.S. 396-6 Employers responsibility, safe place

H.R.S. 386-31 (b) Temporary Total Disability

z

Ke

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This has been 6 years and 8 months of the most arduous,

and excruciating time of my life defending this case. The health

and welfare of peoples lives is suppose to be the most important

concern. I dedicated. 7 1/2 years of my life as an Adult Corrections

Officer and I’m still fighting for the safety of the public in my

unofficial role. I have no reprimand in my Adult Corrections

Officer file, only perhaps a Wrongful Termination charge while |

was under doctors care. I ask this court to help me correct these

wrongs by the Respondents.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The overwhelming reason to grant this Writ of Certiorari

is the Respondents blatant, horrendous and shameful conduct in

permitting so much harm to so many people. The Respondents

exemplify the greatest level of evil, for such an extended period.

To deny the Petitioner a Writ of Certiorari would be equal to

awarding Adolf Hitler the Nobel Prize for exterminating Jewish

people.

I was one of four people medically excused from this

closed air environment, they include Larry Enriquez, Richard De

Aguiar, James K. La‘a and myself, along with the thousands more

unaware or intimidated and unable to respond. And also Bruce

Sakamoto, Inmate Educational Counselor.

Wherefore, the Petitioner Tsuji requests with this court to

reverse the decision of the 9th Cir. and place an order or remand

this case, so that the closed air environment be mandated to

comply and be made safe, the Petitioner be reinstated under 29

U.S.C. 660(c); be placed with Vocational Rehabilitation under

H.R.S. 386-25; reinstate my benefits under H.R.S. 386-31 (b); and

hold my perpetrators for damages in their individual capacities.

Blaylock v. Schwinden, 862-F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1988).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Kindo, R. Gyou Puy,

STANLEY R. TSUJI, Pro Se

Date:

January 23, 1999