Grieco v. Department of the Treasury et al

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER. GRANTED 12 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 2/22/2010.(LB)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO P E T E R L. GRIECO Plaintiff v. D E P A R T M E N T OF TREASURY, et al D e f e n d a n ts C iv il No. 09-1859 (SEC)

OPINION AND ORDER P e n d in g before this Court is Puerto Rico's Department of Treasury, and its Secretary's (c o lle c tiv e ly "Defendants"), motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Docket # 12. Plaintiff Peter L. Grieco ("Plaintiff") opposed. Docket # 13. After reviewing the filings, a n d the applicable law, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. F a c tu a l and Procedural Background O n August 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging that Defendants f a ile d to respond to his request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Docket # 3. A c c o rd in g to the complaint, on May 26, 2009, Plaintiff mailed via Priority Mail to Defendants a request pursuant to FOIA's Section 552, which requires that agencies provide certain in f o rm a tio n to the public if so requested. 5 U.S.C. § 552. Specifically, Plaintiff requested in f o rm a tio n about the status of a document previously filed by him at said agency. Plaintiff's re q u e st was signed as received by Defendants on June 1, 2009. He avers that Defendants failed to adequately respond within twenty days as required by Section 552(a)(6)(A) of the a f o re m e n tio n e d act. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A). According to Plaintiff, as of this date, he has not re c e iv e d a response from Defendants, in violation of FOIA. As such, he moves this Court to o rd e r Defendants to provide the requested information.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CIVIL NO. 09-1859 (SEC)

Page 2

O n December 12, 2009, Defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that this Court lacks s u b je c t-m a tte r jurisdiction. Docket # 12. In support thereof, they argue that FOIA applies only to federal agencies, not state agencies or entities. Standard of Review F e d . R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) R u le 12(b)(1) is the proper vehicle for challenging a court's subject matter jurisdiction. Valentín v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 362-63 (1st Cir. 2001). Under this rule, a wide v a rie ty of challenges to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction may be asserted, among them th o s e based on sovereign immunity, ripeness, mootness, and the existence of a federal question. Id. (citations omitted); see also Hernández-Santiago v. Ecolab, Inc., 397 F.3d 30, 33 (1 st Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (discussing application of Rule 12(b)(1) challenge in cases where the court allegedly has d iv e rs ity jurisdiction). Justiciability is a component of a court's subject matter jurisdiction, and, a s such, must be reviewed following Rule 12(b)(1)'s standards. Sumitomo v. Quantum, 434 F. S u p p . 2d 93 (D.P.R. 2006). A court faced with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion should give it preference. D yn a m ic Image Technologies, Inc. v. U.S., 221 F. 3d 34, 37 (1st Cir. 2000). A plaintiff faced w ith a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction has the burden to demonstrate th a t such jurisdiction exists. See Lord v. Casco Bay Weekly, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 32, 33 (D. Me. 1 9 9 2 ); see also SURCCO V. PRASA, 157 F. Supp. 2d 160, 163 (D. P.R. 2001). A p p lic a b le Law and Analysis F o r purposes of FOIA, "`agency' means each authority of the Government of the United S ta te s , whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency..." 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). In te rp re tin g said section, this district has held that the term "agency" under FOIA does not in c lu d e state or local agencies such as the Puerto Rico Labor and Human Resources D e p a rtm e n t, and Puerto Rico's Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. Toledo v. P.R. Labor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CIVIL NO. 09-1859 (SEC)

Page 3

a n d Human Resources Dept., 203 F. Supp. 127, 130 (D.P.R. 2002); see also Hernandez v. Esso S td . Oil Co., 252 F.R.D. 118, 119 (D.P.R. 2008) (holding that FOIA is inapplicable to states, te rrito rie s , and their agencies). Similarly, other courts have found that insofar as FOIA applies o n ly to "agencies" as defined under 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), "[u]nder these definitions, `agency' does n o t encompass state agencies or bodies." St. Michael's Convalescent Hosp. v. California, 643 F .2 d 1369, 1373 (9 th Cir. 1981). T h is Court further notes that Section 551(1) expressly provides that the term "agency" d o e s not include ...(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States..." A lth o u g h Puerto Rico is commonly mis-perceived as a non-incorporated territory of the United S ta te s , an uninterrupted and long-standing line of Supreme Court and First Circuit cases show o th e rw is e . See USA v. Vega-Figueroa, 984 F. Supp. 71, 75 (1997). Since 1953, the First Circuit re c o g n iz e d that in 1952 Puerto Rico ceased being a territory of the United States subject to the p le n a ry powers of Congress. Mora v. Mejias, 206 F.2d 377 (1st Cir. 1953). Specifically, pursuant to Public Law 600, the federal government's authority over Puerto Rico emanates from the c o m p a c t entered into between Congress and the People of Puerto Rico. 48 U.S.C. § 731(b) 64 S ta t. 319 (1950); see also Figueroa v. People of Puerto Rico, 232 F.2d 615, 620 (1st Cir. 1956). A s a result of said compact, dual sovereignty akin to that of a state exists between Puerto Rico a n d the United States. The dual sovereignty doctrine in Puerto Rico has been consistently re c o g n iz e d by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, the First Circuit and the United States S u p r e m e Court. Vega-Figueroa, 984 F. Supp. at 75 (citing Cordova & Simonpietri v. Chase M a n h a tta n Bank, 649 F.2d 36, 39-41 (1st. Cir. 1981); First Fed. S & L Assoc. of P.R. v. Ruiz d e Jesus, 644 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1981); People v. Castro-Garcia, 120 D.P.R. 740 (1988); Examining Board of Engineers vs Flores, 426 U.S. 572, 594 (1976); Rodriguez v. Popular

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CIVIL NO. 09-1859 (SEC)

Page 4

D e m o c ra tic Party, 457 U.S. 1, 8(1982); United States v. Lopez Andino, 831 F.2d 1164 (1st Cir. 1 9 8 7 )). As a result, albeit courts have recognized that "the legal relationship between Puerto Rico a n d the United States is far from clear and fraught with controversy..," Vega Figueroa, 984 F. S u p p . at 76 (citing Lopez Andino, 831 F.2d 1164 (1st Cir. 1987), the Supreme Court has re p e a te d ly held that Puerto Rico is to be treated as a state, and conferred "`the degree of a u to n o m y and independence normally associated with the states of the union.'" Examining B o a rd of Engineers, 426 U.S. at 594; see also Vega Figueroa, 984 F. Supp. at 76. Thus "Puerto R ic o , like a state, is an autonomous political entity..." Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. at 8 ; see also Examining Board of Engineers, 426 U.S. at 594. Based on the foregoing, this Court f in d s that Puerto Rico's Department of Treasury is a state agency, and insofar as FOIA does not a p p ly to state agencies, it is inapplicable in the case at bar. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that Plaintiff cannot assert claims under FOIA a g a in st Defendants. Absent other federal claims, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction o v e r the present case. C o n c lu s io n B a s e d on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the instant c a s e is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22 n d day of February, 2010. S / Salvador E. Casellas S A L V A D O R E. CASELLAS S e n io r United States District Judge