IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN



ALICIA RICHARDSON, on behalf of Minor, )

BR, )

) CIVIL NO. ST-16-CV-483



Petitioner, )



) PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

vs. )

)

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, _ )

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and the )

17th ELECTED VIRGIN ISLANDS BOARD )

OF EDUCATION, )

)

Respondents. )

)



MEMORANDUM OPINION



THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Motion to File Petition for Writ of

Review Out of Time” filed by Petitioner Alicia Richardson, through counsel, on

August 22, 2016. Respondents opposed Petitioner’s motion.! For the reason set forth

herein, Petitioner’s motion will be denied and the petition for writ of review will be

dismissed.



I. Relevant Background



On June 11, 2015, Petitioner Alicia Richardson filed a complaint with the V.I.

Board of Education (BOE) challenging her daughter B.R.’s final English grade for the



2014-2015 school year. Richardson’s daughter was in twelfth grade, and the failing



* VI Board of Education filed an Opposition on September 22, 2016. The following day the Board of Education and

Government of the Virgin Islands Department of Education filed a joint Opposition through separate counsel.

Richardson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands et.

Case No. ST-16-CV-483



Memorandum Opinion



Page 2 of 6



grade prevented her from graduating. Richardson v. V.I. Dep’t of Education, VIBOE

Case No. STT-001-2015, 2. (Sept. 4, 2015). Richardson claimed the grade was not an

objective assessment of her daughter’s academic achievements, not based on merit,

and the teacher was discriminatory in her grading. Id. at 1.



The BOE held a hearing on June 24, 2015. Id. The BOE ultimately found

Richardson failed to prove the grades were invalid, and her complaint was dismissed

with prejudice on September 04, 2015.



On August 22, 2016, Richardson, on behalf of her daughter and through

counsel, filed a “Petition for Writ of Review” pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 1421-23 and Virgin

Island Superior Court Rule 15 (Rule 15). Under Rule 15, Richardson’s petition was

untimely, but she simultaneously filed the instant motion asking the Court to accept

her untimely petition. She asserts the late filing was not her fault, but instead her

counsel “had a medical condition that interfered with his ability to timely file the

Petition in this matter.” Richardson’s counsel offers to provide the Court, in camera,



with documents to substantiate his medical condition.2



II. Discussion



A. Richardson has a basis to file a writ of review.



The Superior Court has jurisdiction over writs of review when the petitioner



has “no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy...” 5 V.I.C. 1422.



? Richardson’s counsel in this petition for writ of review also represented her before the Board of Education.

Richardson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands et.

Case No. ST-16-CV-483



Memorandum Opinion



Page 3 of 6



Respondents BOE and Government of the Virgin Islands Department of Education

(DOE) both point out that Title 17 V.I.C. § 23(c) states “All decisions rendered by the

Board of Education...on complaints shall be final, unless reviewed by the Governor.”

(emphasis added). Relying upon that language, both BOE and DOE argue that

Richardson does not have grounds for a writ of review because her proper remedy is

through the Governor. See BOE’s Opp’n 3. (“Not only does Petitioner have a plain,

speedy remedy by first resorting to the Governor of the Virgin Islands...”); DOE’s

Opp’n 2. (“This appeal has not been reviewed by the Governor... Under the doctrine

of exhaustion of administrative remedies, this court lack jurisdiction...”).



However, 17 V.I.C. § 23 does not provide guidance on how—or if—a

complainant may request the Governor to review a Board of Education decision.

Therefore, the Court finds that Richardson does not have another plain, speedy, and



adequate remedy; and as a result she does have grounds for a writ of review.



B. The 30-day timeliness requirement in 5 V.I.C. § 1421 is a claims-processing

rule.



Nothing within the Virgin Islands Code sets a specific deadline for filing a

petition for writ of review. Instead, “[t]itle five, section 1421 et seq. of the Virgin



Islands Code authorizes writs of review pursuant to Superior Court Rule 15(a)...”



° There is no indication that Richardson requested the Governor to review the subject decision. However, that is

irrelevant in light of the lack of procedure for requesting a review.

Richardson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands et.

Case No. ST-16-CV-483



Memorandum Opinion



Page 4 of 6



Worldwide Flight Services v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 51 V.I. 105, 109 n.1

(VI. 2009). Rule 15 states the “petition shall be filed within 30 days after the date of

the decision or determination complained of...” V.I. Super. Ct. R. 15(a) (emphasis

added).



“It is well established that time limits set exclusively by court rules are mere

claims-processing rules which do not affect a court's subject-matter jurisdiction even

if they may result in dismissal if violated.” Gov't of the V.I. v. Crooke, 54 V.I. 237, 253-

54 (V.I. 2010). Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the petition for

writ of review. Nevertheless, when a party timely invokes a claims-processing rule,

application of the rule remains mandatory. Hughley v. Government of the Virgin

Islands, 61 V.I. 323, 331-332, 2014 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 48, *11-12 (VI. Oct. 1, 2014)

citing Public Emples. Rel. Bd. v. United Indus. Workers-Seafarers Int'l Union, 56 V.1.

429, 435-36 (V.I. 2012) (citing Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19, 126 S. Ct.

403, 163 L. Ed. 2d 14 (2005)). Here the Respondents objected to Richardson’s “Motion

to File Petition for Writ of Review Out of Time” at their first opportunity.



The Court notes that the purpose of claim-processing rules is to “assure relief

to a party properly raising them, but do not compel the same result if the party forfeits

them.” Ventura v. People of the Virgin Islands, 64 V.I. 589, 616-617, 2016 V.I.

Supreme LEXIS 15, *39 (VI. May 4, 2016) citing Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S.



12, 19, 126 S. Ct. 403, 163 L. Ed. 2d 14 (2005).

Richardson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands et.

Case No. ST-16-CV-483



Memorandum Opinion



Page 5 of 6



Even though a claims-processing statute may be equitably tolled or judicially

modified in some circumstances, the Superior Court is obligated to enforce a claim-

processing rule upon proper invocation by a party. See Hughley v. Gov't of the V.I., 61

V.I. 323, 331 (2014) (‘when a party timely invokes a claims-processing rule,

application of the rule remains mandatory.”); Pub. Emples. Rel. Bd. v. United Indus.

Workers-Seafarers Int'l Union, 56 V.1. 429, 435-36 (2012) (“both respondents properly

challenged the timeliness of the petition for writ of review, and thus the Superior

Court possessed an obligation to enforce the timeliness requirement”); Ventura v.

People of the Virgin Islands, 64 V.I. 589, 617 (VI. 2016) (“[t]he purpose of claim-

processing rules is to assure relief to a party properly raising them...”)



Richardson’s petition for writ of review was filed almost one year after the

BOE entered its decision. Respondents DOE and BOE have properly challenged the

timeliness of Richardson’s petition. Thus the Court must therefore assure their relief

by enforcing the timeliness requirement. The Court must deny Richardson’s motion



and dismiss the petition for writ. Hughley and Ventura.



III. Conclusion.



Petitioner Richardson filed her petition for writ of review 353 days after the

Board of Education dismissed her claim. The 30-day filing requirement for writs of

review is a claims-processing rule. Therefore, this Court has subject matter



jurisdiction. However, Respondents properly invoked the timeliness requirement.

Richardson v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands et.



Case No. ST-16-CV-483



Memorandum Opinion



Page 6 of 6



Therefore, Richardson’s “Motion to File Petition for Writ of Review Out of Time” will



be denied and the petition for writ of review will be dismissed.



An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.



DATED: Jfly Li. 2017



Kathleen Mackay J



Judge of the Superior Court



of the Virgin Islands



ATTES



ESTRE



LA H. GEORGE



Cl



of the Court



DONNA D. DOXOVAN



Court Clerk Sufervisor 7



Lei xl 7



Lf