Zajradhara V Nmc
E-FILED
CNMI SUPREME COURT
E-filed: Jul 22 2025 05:00PM
Clerk Review: Jul 22 2025 05:00PM
Filing ID: 76700863
Case No.: 2024-SCC-0019-CIV
NoraV Borja
IN THE
Supreme Court
OF THE
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
NORTHERN MARIANAS COLLEGE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ZAJI O. ZAJRADHARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court No. 2024-SCC-0019-CIV
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Cite as: 2025 MP 4
Decided July 22, 2025
CHIEF JUSTICE ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JOHN A. MANGLOÑA
JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
Superior Court No. 24-0101
Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo, Presiding
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
CASTRO, C.J.:
¶1 Appellant Zaji O. Zajradhara (“Zajradhara”) appeals a preliminary
injunction issued by the Superior Court. Appellee Northern Marianas College
(“NMC”) moved this Court to address Zajradhara’s behavior in its Motion to
Strike and Motion for Order to Show Cause, and its Supplemental Motion for
Order to Show Cause. We find that Zajradhara has repeatedly shown
unprofessional conduct, a lack of decorum, a failure to follow procedural rules,
and a lack of candor. Accordingly, Zajradhara’s appeal is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Zajradhara appears pro se and has been granted in forma pauperis status.
He filed over forty documents with the Supreme Court Clerk of Court.1 Several
of these filings were duplicative, including the four separate versions of his
Opening Brief. Additionally, he introduced arguments outside the scope of this
appeal and cited numerous false legal authorities and hallucinated cases.
¶3 Zajradhara routinely sent inflammatory emails to opposing counsel and
judicial staff, often including several unrelated parties as recipients. In several of
these communications, Zajradhara used language that may be construed as
harassing and intimidating, and directed personal attacks against opposing
counsel and the trial court judge.
¶4 NMC moved to strike Zajradhara’s Opening Brief and sanction him for
his repeated failure to follow Supreme Court Rules, citation to non-existent
authority, and personal attacks against opposing counsel and members of the
bench.
¶5 We granted NMC’s request to strike Appellant’s Opening Brief from the
record and ordered Zajradhara to show cause as to why his appeal should not be
dismissed due to his ongoing violations of the Supreme Court Rules. Zajradhara
was also ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his
inappropriate behavior and why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant,
based on his repeated filing of meritless motions and ongoing pattern of
disrespect toward both the Court and opposing counsel.
¶6 Zajradhara received two warnings in earlier orders, reminding him that
self-represented litigants must follow Supreme Court Rules and failure to do so
may result in dismissal of the appeal.
II. JURISDICTION
¶7 We have appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of the
Commonwealth Superior Court. NMI CONST. art. IV, § 3.
1
Zajradhara submitted a Motion for Addendum and Motion for Clarification of the
record; however, because his appeal is being dismissed, we need not address these
motions.
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Zajradhara’s Violations of the Supreme Court Rules
¶8 NMC moved this Court to sanction Zajradhara for his citations to
hallucinated case law and failure to comply with Supreme Court Rules. While
Zajradhara is appearing before this Court pro se, his status as an appellant does
not excuse his failure to follow the rules. See In re Estate of Tudela, 2024 MP 9
¶ 17. Appellate rules are not merely “prudential rule[s] of convenience.”
Commonwealth v. Guiao, 2016 MP 15 ¶ 12. Rather, they are required—and
compliance is necessary—for the proper administration of justice. Id.
¶9 First, Zajradhara did not submit a timely brief under Supreme Court Rule
28 and neglected to submit an appendix as required under Rule 30(a). Second,
his brief has procedural irregularities under Rule 32, including the lack of a cover
page and improper formatting. Third, and most egregious, his argument section
violates Rule 28, which requires citations to “authorities and parts of the record
on which the appellant relies.” Zajradhara cites three cases that either do not exist
or misrepresent the content of the cited material. For example, Zajradhara cites
In re Estate of Tudela, 2024 MP 9 ¶ 17 to “emphasiz[e] procedural fairness in
judicial proceedings.” However, the cited paragraph discusses that self-
represented litigants are not excused from following the rules. Zajradhara also
misrepresents Carroll v. President & Comm’rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175,
183 (1968), claiming it stands for the proposition that injunctions must be
narrowly tailored to address specific harm, which is not illustrated in the case.
Finally, Santos v. Santos, 2023 MP 5 ¶ 10, also cited by Zajradhara, simply does
not exist. The improper citations are not limited to his brief, but reoccur
throughout the duration of this appeal. In prior motions, he has cited to several
nonexistent cases and legal authorities, including: “Mallory v. Norfolk Southern
Ry. Co., 579 U.S. 131 (2016)”; “United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir.
1984)”; “Dandan v. Bank of Hawaii*, 4 N.M.I. 289 (1996)”; “Agulto v.
Guerrero*, 1 N.M.I. 635 (1990)”; and “Katel v. County of Nassau, 602 F. Supp.
2d 360, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).” Zajradhara has been warned about this issue
multiple times in past orders.
¶ 10 In his response to the show cause order, Zajradhara attributes his
noncompliant brief to his pro se status and lack of resources. Appellant’s
Response to Order Granting Motion to Strike Opening Brief and Order Show
Cause (“Response to Show Cause”) at 2. While we acknowledge the difficulties
pro se litigants face in navigating the legal system, all parties, despite their status,
must abide by the rules. Zajradhara requests leniency instead of sanctions;
however, we cannot, in good faith, excuse the repeated violations after multiple
warnings. Courts have imposed sanctions on pro se litigants for filings that cite
nonexistent case law. See, e.g., Kruse v. Karlen, 692 S.W.3d 43, 52 (Mo. Ct.
App. 2024) (dismissing pro se appellant’s case due to numerous citations to
fabricated, non-existent case law and imposing a $10,000 fine for the opposing
party’s legal fees). Although this Court has yet to sanction a pro se litigant, we
find that such an action is appropriate.
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
B. Zajradhara’s Professional Decorum
¶ 11 NMC moved to sanction Zajradhara for his repeated lack of professional
decorum and inappropriate conduct toward opposing counsel. On multiple
occasions, Zajradhara sent inflammatory emails containing unsupported personal
attacks addressed to opposing counsel and court staff, and included third-party
individuals in the emails, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, the U.S. State Department Office of
Inspector General, and the White House. We find this behavior unacceptable and
sanctionable. See In re Estate of Tudela, 2023 MP 11 ¶ 23 (finding that continued
personal attacks directed toward opposing counsel would be grounds for
sanctions).
¶ 12 Self-represented litigants are expected to conduct themselves with the
same level of decorum, courtesy, and professionalism as those represented by
counsel. See In re Paige, 738 F. App’x 85, 86 (3d Cir. 2018). Ad hominem
attacks directed at courts, court staff, bench, opposing counsel, or opposing
parties are irrelevant and inappropriate. As a pro se litigant, appellant’s role is to
present legal arguments, not to harass, intimidate, demean, or insult others. See
Nguyen v. Biter, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9307, at *18 (E.D. Cal. Jan 27, 2015)
(“Plaintiff is mistaken that proceeding pro se shields him from the consequences
of his actions or excuses misbehavior. It does not. Parties and counsel have a duty
to behave civilly and respectfully toward one another, and conduct to the contrary
is sanctionable where it undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.”).
Unfamiliarity with the legal process is no excuse to harass opposing counsel and
the Court.
¶ 13 While Zajradhara, in his response, expresses regret about the tone of his
emails, he maintains that his communications are protected by the First
Amendment and stemmed from frustration with what he describes as “proveable
[sic] injustice.” Response to Show Cause at 4. He offers both an apology and
commitment to professionalism, urging the Court to consider the context of his
remarks rather than imposing sanctions. Id. We are unpersuaded by Zajradhara’s
response. The frequency and intensity of Zajradhara’s communications reflect a
pattern, not just a lapse in judgment. Additionally, the First Amendment does not
shield litigants from discipline or sanctions for harassing, demeaning, or
threatening conduct toward opposing counsel. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Sayler,
721 So. 2d 1152, 1155 (Fla. 1998) (“The First Amendment does not protect those
who make harassing or threatening remarks about the judiciary or opposing
counsel.”).
¶ 14 We find that Zajradhara’s personal attacks against NMC and judicial
officers throughout the life of this appeal fell well below the level of decorum
that is expected from all those who appear before the Court, including parties
appearing pro se. This Court will not tolerate such uncivil conduct, as such
behavior undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Accordingly, we find
that sanctions are justified.
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
C. Sanctions
¶ 15 We may take any action deemed appropriate for non-compliance with the
Rules, including dismissal of an appeal. NMI Sup. Ct. R. 45-1(c)(2). An appeal
may also be dismissed as frivolous if it presents no cognizable legal question. In
re Estate of Tudela, 2023 MP 11 ¶ 16. A frivolous appeal exists when there is a
lack of a justiciable question and it is “readily recognizable as devoid of merit in
that there is little prospect that [it] can ever succeed.” Id. ¶ 17 (quoting
Commonwealth v. Kawai, 1 NMI 66, 72 n.4 (1990)).
¶ 16 In Tudela, the appellant’s arguments were found to be meritless: “an
illustrious array of unsupported accusations” that “point[ed] to no factual or legal
basis to justify” the relief requested. Id. ¶ 20. While the Court ultimately
concluded that the appeal only “border[ed] on frivolous,” it noted that the
deficiencies could be cured by further argument from the appellant. Id. In that
case, the appellant’s accusations towards the administrator and attorney of his
mother’s estate, though personal and unsupported, were at least loosely tied to
the legal issues on appeal.
¶ 17 In contrast, Zajradhara’s filings and communications have been replete
with inappropriate and unsupported commentary and personal attacks divorced
from the issues on appeal. He has made unsupported statements and personal
accusations against justices of the Supreme Court, the presiding judge in the
Superior Court, opposing counsel, private individuals associated with the
opposing party, the opposing party itself, and the integrity of both the
Commonwealth and United States legal systems. Rather than argue the merits of
the appeal, Zajradhara uses his filings as a platform to address matters outside
the scope of this appeal.
¶ 18 The test for frivolity is whether the litigant can make a rational argument
on the law or facts in support of their claim. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967) (finding an appeal frivolous where a brief lacks any legal points
arguable on the merits). Zajradhara’s Opening Brief, in any of its four forms,
presents no cognizable legal or factual argument. Although it purports to rely on
legal reasoning and authority, the cited authorities are nonexistent or provide no
support for the arguments asserted. He has also failed to submit an appendix or
any part of the record. Even if we set aside the lack of legal argument and
inflammatory rhetoric, the Brief contains no meaningful legal or factual content,
rendering judicial review difficult. In Fox v. Fox, the court affirmed that
sanctions were appropriate when a party had filed numerous, duplicative motions
lacking factual or legal support, and failed to follow procedural rules.
2022 VT 27 ¶ 2. Like Fox, we find Zajradhara’s repeated meritless filings
sanctionable.
¶ 19 NMC further requested attorney’s fees and costs. While Supreme Court
Rule 38 permits such relief, we decline to impose such measures at this time
given Zajradhara’s financial circumstances.
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
¶ 20 We have extended considerable leniency to Zajradhara throughout the
appellate process. However, after receiving multiple warnings, continued
noncompliance can no longer be tolerated. Zajradhara fails to take accountability
and instead deflects blame onto the local bar association and this Court. Response
to Show Cause at 2, 3. Zajradhara’s repeated use of false authority and persistent
personal attacks, lead us to dismiss this appeal as frivolous. We will not expend
judicial resources on appellate briefs that egregiously violate the Supreme Court
Rules; nor will we tolerate flagrant violations of an appellant’s duty of candor to
the court.
D. Vexatious Litigant
¶ 21 After a review of the record and Zajradhara’s conduct throughout the
pendency of this appeal, the Court finds a sustained pattern of disregard for the
rules, procedures, resources, and staff. A vexatious litigant is defined as a self-
represented party who “repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or
other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are
frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” 7 CMC § 2451(e)(3).
The record reflects that Zajradhara has filed over forty documents in this appeal
alone, many of which are duplicative and lack any meaningful substance.
¶ 22 Zajradhara has also filed four versions of his Opening Brief, offering little
to no explanation regarding any distinctions among them. In one resubmission,
he used language that may be construed as harassing and intimidating language
and made personal attacks against opposing counsel and the trial court judge.
Nearly every motion he has submitted has been filed in duplicate or triplicate,
often repeating the same broad statements and requests that the Court has already
addressed. These filings contain unmeritorious arguments, such as his request for
removal of this case to federal court. Even after we have ruled on these motions,
he persistently repeats the same arguments without acknowledging the Court’s
prior orders.
¶ 23 In determining whether to restrict a litigant’s future access to the courts,
“[u]ltimately, the question the court must answer is whether a litigant who has a
history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process
and harass other parties.” RSA-Tumon v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., Inc., 2023 Guam
8 ¶ 42 (quoting Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986)).
Zajradhara’s conduct shows a clear and consistent pattern of disregard for the
appellate process, this Court, and for the opposing party and its counsel. His
incessant filing and refiling of unmeritorious motions have unnecessarily
consumed judicial resources, requiring the Court and its staff to spend significant
time reviewing duplicative submissions and trying to verify nonexistent legal
authority. These repeated filings have also placed a considerable burden on the
Clerk of Court, who must process, catalog, and serve each submission. Such
conduct “cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of
judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of
other litigants.” Id. at ¶ 43 (quoting De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
(9th Cir. 1990)). Despite having more than eight months to conform his conduct
to the expectations of the appellate process, Zajradhara has failed to do so.
¶ 24 We find that Zajradhara is a vexatious litigant and may only file future
litigation with the express permission of the Chief Justice for matters in the
Supreme Court and the Presiding Judge for matters in the Superior Court. The
Chief Justice and Presiding Judge shall permit the filing of litigation only if it
appears that it has merit and has not been filed for harassment or delay. See 7
CMC § 2457.
V. CONCLUSION
¶ 25 Throughout the course of this appeal, Zajradhara has repeatedly violated
Supreme Court Rules, failed to maintain professional decorum, and submitted
numerous filings devoid of legal merit. Accordingly, he is deemed a vexatious
litigant in the courts of the Commonwealth and shall be subject to a pre-filing
order pursuant to 7 CMC § 2457 to prevent any further misconduct and
unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. For the foregoing reasons,
Zajradhara’s appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2025.
/s/
ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO
Chief Justice
/s/
JOHN A. MANGLOÑA
Associate Justice
/s/
F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
Justice Pro Tempore
COUNSEL
Zaji O. Zajradhara, Pro Se Appellant.
Mark Scoggins, Saipan, MP, for Appellee.
NOTICE
This order has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication in the
permanent law reports. Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. In any event
of discrepancies between this slip opinion and the opinion certified for publication, the
Zajradhara v. NMC, 2025 MP 4
certified opinion controls. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Supreme Court, P.O. Box 502165 Saipan, MP 96950, phone (670) 236–9715, fax
(670) 236–9702, e-mail Supreme.Court@NMIJudiciary.gov.