Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. et al v. Rodriguez et al
Filing
1543
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1444 Report and Recommendations ; Granting 1411 Motion for Contempt; Noted 1415 Supplemental Motion; Denying 1453 Motion for Reconsideration. Dorado's informative motion regarding the deposit of the imposed sanctions is due on or before April 30, 2015. Dorado's further amended action plan is due on or before May 20, 2015. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi(MET)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
3
4
5
WATCHTOWER BIBLE TRACT
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al.,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
8
9
CASE NO. 04-1452 (GAG)
MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ISABEL, et
al.,
Defendants.
10
11
OPINION AND ORDER
12
On January 22, 2015 Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreño Coll held a hearing on Plaintiffs’
13
Motion for Contempt against the Municipality of Dorado and thereafter issued the undersigned a
14
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (See Docket No. 1444.)
15
After evaluating the evidence presented at the hearing, Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll found
16
that, on five (5) occasions, the Municipality of Dorado failed to ensure that Jehovah’s Witnesses,
17
who were attempting to practice door-to-door ministry in Sabanera de Dorado, a manned gated
18
urbanization, were able to do so within its bounds. Docket No. 1444 at 22. Consequently,
19
Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll recommended that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6), Dorado be
20
held in contempt and fined $1,000 for each instance of non-compliance, for a total of $5,000. Id.
21
at 23. Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll further recommended that Dorado reimburse Plaintiffs for
22
their attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,000. Id. Furthermore, in an effort to abate Dorado’s
23
24
1
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
1
repeated non-compliance, Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll suggested that Dorado’s action plan be
2
amended to provide stronger compliance mechanisms to ensure future compliance with the court’s
3
mandates. (Id. at 19.) This recommendation provided guidelines for the amendments to the action
4
plan that Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll deemed necessary. (Id.)
5
In light of Dorado’s recurrent incidents of non-compliance with Sabanera, the undersigned
6
agrees with Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll’s recommendation that Dorado’s action plan needs to
7
be updated. Therefore, after careful consideration, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carreño
8
Coll’s R&R at Docket No. 1444 a follows.
9
A.
Dorado’s Opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Docket No. 1453)
10
The Municipality of Dorado moves the court to reconsider Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll’s
11
contempt findings. (See Docket No. 1453.) In an effort to justify its non-compliance, Dorado
12
emphasizes some of the issues that have come up in Sabanera, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses being
13
granted access to the streets, but not allowed to park their cars on the streets or knock on doors,
14
particularly focusing on the incidents that took place on January 15th and 16th of this year.
15
(Docket No. 1453 ¶¶ 14, 16.) Rather than rehash these facts, the court makes reference to
16
Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll’s detailed account of these incidents. (See Docket No. 1444 at 12-
17
19.) Dorado further tries to vindicate its actions by describing the efforts by Dorado Municipal
18
Police in managing the situation with Sabanera’s administrator and other officials, instructing them
19
about the law and Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. (Id.)
However, the evidence presented
20
demonstrates that these efforts led to no avail.
After the Police Commissioner’s
21
intervention, Dorado’s counsel concedes that he was later informed that Sabanera had continued
22
prohibiting Jehovah’s Witnesses from knocking on doors. (Docket No. 1453 ¶ 15.) Finally, on
23
account of its efforts, Dorado posits that it “had no other power over Sabanera to deal with this
24
(See id.)
2
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
1
situation other than secure access and instruct the parties’ about their rights.” (Id. ¶ 17.)
2
The court is not persuaded by Dorado’s argument that its hands were tied. It seems as
3
though the Municipality does not want to acknowledge its duty to protect Jehovah’s Witnesses’
4
First Amendment Rights and what they entail. It is well-settled law that the Municipalities’ duty
5
goes beyond the urbanization’s gates. As incidents like these show no signs of disappearing, the
6
undersigned takes this opportunity to clarify, once again, for the Municipality of Dorado, the
7
other Defendant Municipalities and urbanizations, that Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right
8
to freely enter all urbanizations and to freely practice door-to-door ministry and that the
9
Municipalities have an ongoing duty to ensure that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights are
10
respected.
11
The undersigned is astounded that, after more than a decade of litigation, a clearly
12
established principle by the United States Supreme Court is still being questioned by Defendants.
13
The case law governing the issue of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ First Amendment right to engage in
14
door-to-door ministry is clear. (See Docket No. 904.) Not only do Jehovah’s Witnesses have
15
the right to enter urbanizations, but they also have the right ring doorbells and knock on
16
household doors, even if they must enter private property to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has
17
repeatedly upheld this right in previous cases dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
18
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 161
19
(2002) (holding that “[f]or over 50 years, the Court has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door
20
canvassing and pamphleteering”) (citing Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610
21
(1976); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
22
(1943); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296; Schneider
23
v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)).
24
3
See
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The act of door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering is mandated by their religion.
Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘claim to follow the example of Paul, teaching
‘publickly, and from house to house.’ Acts 20:20. They take literally
the mandate of the Scriptures, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature.’ Mark 16:15. In doing so they believe
that they are obeying a commandment of God.’ Moreover, because
they lack significant financial resources, the ability of the Witnesses
to proselytize is seriously diminished by regulations that burden their
efforts to canvass door-to-door.
Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. at 161 (quoting Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108 (1943)).
8
Earlier in this litigation this court recognized that the grant of a Controlled Access Law
9
(“CAL”) permit to an urbanization “does not abrogate the municipality’s obligation to ensure that
10
public streets remain available for public use.” Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y v. Sanchez-
11
Ramos, 647 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (D.P.R. 2009). Thereafter, the First Circuit affirmed this
12
particular finding and further stated that:
13
14
15
16
[I]n administering the CAL, each municipality has an ongoing duty
to ensure that the First Amendment is respected in the urbanizations
founded under its auspices. In addition, the legislature has implanted
teeth in this grant of authority: the CAL gives municipalities the
power to impose sanctions on a wayward urbanization even after a
permit is issued and recorded.
17
Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc’y of New York v. Municipality of San Juan, et al., 773 F.3d 1
18
(1st Cir. 2014) (citing P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 23, § 64d). The Municipalities’ ongoing duty requires
19
not only that Jehovah’s Witnesses are secured access to public streets but also extends to ensure
20
that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ First Amendment rights are guaranteed, namely, their right to door-to-
21
door canvasing. In a situation such as the one transpired at Sabanera, the Municipality shields
22
behind the fact that street access was granted, but chooses to ignore the fact that to door-to-door
23
canvasing was prohibited. As to this issue, Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll stated:
24
4
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
Dorado still does not understand the important First Amendment
concerns that have animated this case. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’
purpose in bringing this suit is not simply to walk silently down the
streets of Puerto Rico’s controlled-access communities; rather, they
brought this suit so as to be free to engage in door-to-door ministry,
an important tenet of their faith.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
(Docket 1444 at 8.) Because Dorado has the duty to ensure Sabanera grants full access to
Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the public use of the streets, the actions taken by Dorado during
the January, 2015 incidents evidences that it failed to take other actions it had in its power. The
CAL provides that Municipalities with the authority to issue permits also have the authority to
revoke CAL permits as a sanction for a violation of the CAL. Dorado, as well as every other
Municipal Defendant in this case, has the ongoing duty to ensure Plaintiffs’ First Amendment
rights are guaranteed. Yet, Dorado did not revoke Sabanera’s CAL permits; therefore it had other
actions it had available but chose to not pursue them. Thus, contrary to its argument, Dorado’s
hands were not tied. Dorado failed to carry out its ongoing duty to protect Plaintiffs’ rights. Thus,
the undersigned, in agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, finds that on the five
occasions in question, Dorado failed to uphold this court’s orders. The court holds Dorado in
contempt in the five instances. Taking into consideration the Municipality’s precarious fiscal
condition, the court, within its discretion, reduces the recommended fine to $250 per violation.
Thus, Dorado is hereby imposed a total of $1,250 in contempt sanctions. However, the court
notes that any future violation will entail the $1,000 fine, as recommended by Judge Carreno Coll.
Moreover, Dorado is also ordered to pay the recommended attorneys’ fees.
B.
Proposed Amended Action Plan at Docket No. 1459
As noted above, Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll suggested Dorado’s original action plan
should be amended and updated to provide stronger compliance mechanisms that abide with the
5
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
1
court’s mandate and governing law. She suggested the following modifications:
15
1.
Require—not urge—manned urbanizations within the
municipality to grant Jehovah’s Witnesses access to the
urbanizations. It must make explicit the fact that “access” means
more than physical entry; it means the right to engage in door-todoor ministry. It must also make clear urbanizations may not impose
conditions on the Jehovah’s Witnesses outside of those found in
orders from this Court or the First Circuit.
2.
Implement a sanctions regime under these auspices of the
municipal administrator, by which the municipality will punish
urbanizations that fail to provide Plaintiffs with full access. The
sanctions regime may include monetary sanctions, but it must
include the revocation of controlled access permits for urbanizations
that repeatedly deny Plaintiffs access.
3.
Provide a contact number by which Jehovah’s Witnesses can
notify the municipal police that they have been denied access to an
urbanization, and obligate the municipal police to promptly respond.
Further, responding municipal police officers must actually ensure
that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are granted full access, including, if
necessary, by locking gates in an open position.
4.
Require the police to make reports of all such calls by
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and to forward such reports to a designated
official within the municipal government.
The theme running through these requirements is that the Court
should not need to be involved in the routine disciplining of
intransigent urbanizations. Under the Court’s judgments and orders,
that job is Dorado’s, and it should be performed without this Court’s
intervention.
16
(Docket No. 1444 19-21.) As instructed by Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll’s R&R, Dorado
17
submitted a second draft of its proposed Amended Action Plan. (See Docket No. 1459.) The court
18
has reviewed the proposed amendments and is unsatisfied.
19
proposed amendments, particularly the imposition of a “sanctions regime,” fail to improve
20
Dorado’s compliance mechanisms to the desired level. The proposed action plan lacks sufficient
21
detail to effectively and immediately tackle and prevent Dorado’s non-compliance. Accordingly,
22
the action plan should be amended once again and submitted for further evaluation by the
23
court.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
24
6
The undersigned finds that the
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
1
First, the Municipality shall devise a detailed permit revocation process, pursuant to section
2
64d of the CAL.1 Dorado’s poorly developed idea that a permit revocation process will exist does
3
not satisfy the court. Supposing this proposed plan was approved by the court, and tomorrow an
4
incident arises in which Sabanera, or any other urbanization, denies Jehovah’s Witnesses’ access
5
and exercise of their First Amendment rights, Dorado would still be unable to flourishingly carry
6
out the permit revocation process without undue delay. Moreover, under the CAL, sanctions for
7
violating its dispositions may not exceed $250 per violation. (See id.)
8
Second, the action plan must include a detailed explanation that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ door-
9
to-door ministry is protected under the First Amendment and, therefore, they must be allowed to
10
11
exercise their right in public roads, as articulated above.
Dorado shall promptly refile an amended action plan in accordance with this order by
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
Section 64d of the CAL reads as follows:
Any violation or noncompliance with the requirements established above shall bring about the
automatic revocation of the authorization, except when the permit or authorization has been
recorded in the Property Registry of Puerto Rico, as authorized in § 64d-1 of this title. The
expenses of dismantling or removing the access control facilities shall be the responsibility of
and be defrayed by the residents and proprietors of the urbanization or community concerned
who favored the control of the access.
Once the permit or authorization is registered in the Property Registry of Puerto Rico the
authorization may not be revoked, but the municipality where the development of segregation is
located may impose sanctions, if there is a municipal ordinance to such effects, on any natural
or juridical person who is liable for violating or failing to comply with the requirements
established above. When the permit or authorization has been requested by the urbanizer,
developer or constructor, they shall be liable for such noncompliance or infractions as long as
not more than sixty-five percent (65%) of the residences, lots or plots that make up the
urbanization, subdivision or simple segregation, have been sold and delivered. When a council,
board or residents' association has been constituted, it shall be liable for noncompliance or
infraction of the provisions of § 64c of this title and shall keep the access control under its
authority, to administer and maintain it.
The municipal governments of Puerto Rico shall have the power to approve those municipal
ordinances that are needed to sanction violations of the provisions of §§ 64-64h of this title or
the regulations promulgated hereunder to a maximum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250)
for each violation. Each day that the same violation is committed shall be deemed as a separate
violation.
P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 23, § 64d.
24
7
Civil No. 04-1452 (GAG)
1
May 20, 2015 at noon.
2
In conclusion, after careful consideration of the facts and pertinent law, the court ADOPTS
3
Magistrate Judge Carreño Coll’s R&R at Docket No. 1444 and orders Dorado to refile an amended
4
action plan.
5
Dorado shall deposit the sanctions imposed today into an escrow account and file an
6
informative motion stating the funds have been deposited in such an account no later than April
7
30, 2015.
8
The sanctions imposed today will be be set aside and destined to be used only as ordered by
9
this court. Dorado shall add the sanctions imposed today to the funds set aside for the sanctions
10
imposed by this court on October 23, 2013. (See Docket No. 1264).
11
SO ORDERED.
12
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 20th day of April, 2015.
s/ Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?