Igartua et al v. Toledo et al

Filing 36

OPINION AND ORDER - FINDING AS MOOT Defendants' 27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiffs' 31 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint due by 6/14/2010. Signed by Judge Jaime Pieras, Jr. on 6/9/2010. (mld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

CARMEN M. IGARTÚA, et al., Plaintiffs v. PEDRO TOLEDO, et al., Defendants CIVIL NO. 09-1923 (JP)

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (No. 27), Plaintiffs' opposition (No. 32), and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint (No. 31). For the

reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is MOOT and Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs in this case are Carmen Igartúa ("Igartúa") and Paul Preston September ("Preston"). 15, 2008, Plaintiffs Defendants allege Carlos that, on or about Jorge

Sánchez-Peña,

Padilla-Ramos, Juan Pacheco-Santiago, Luz Torres-González, Blanca Román-Correa, and Juan Colón-Ríos illegally entered their home. While at said home, the above mentioned Defendants, who are all police officers, allegedly assaulted and battered Igartúa. They

allegedly punched, kicked and beat Igartúa with their nightsticks, and also failed to intercede in the attack on Igartúa. Defendants

CIVIL NO. 09-1923 (JP)

-2-

also allegedly later submitted false accusations against Plaintiffs and arrested them. Plaintiffs then filed the instant complaint on September 13, 2009 against Defendants in their individual capacities. II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that, "[a]fter the pleadings are closed ­ but early enough not to delay trial ­ a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." The

standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Marrero-Gutiérrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1, 5

(1st Cir. 2007). "The trial court must accept all of the nonmovant's well-pleaded factual averments as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor." Pasdon v. City of Peabody, 417 F.3d 225, 226 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting Rivera-Gómez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631, 635

(1st Cir. 1988)). To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the complaint must plead facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Remexcel Managerial Consultants, Inc. v.

Arlequín, 583 F.3d 45, 49 n.3 (1st Cir. 2009). III. ANALYSIS Defendants argue that: (1) the claims against José Rodríguez and Blanca Román should be dismissed because said Defendants only appear in the caption of the complaint and because no allegations are made

CIVIL NO. 09-1923 (JP)

-3-

regarding said Defendants in the complaint; and (2) the claims brought by Plaintiff Preston for excessive force should be dismissed because there are no allegations in the complaint supporting a finding of excessive force against said Plaintiff. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and have also submitted a separate motion to amend the complaint. A. The Court will now consider the parties' arguments. Claims Against Defendants José Rodríguez and Blanca Román

In their opposition, Plaintiffs admit that there are no specific allegations as to Defendants José Rodríguez and Blanca Román. They

state that said omission was a mistake and, in a separate motion, request leave to correct the mistake by amending the complaint. Along with said motion, Plaintiffs have attached a copy of the amended complaint. Plaintiffs' argue that the amended complaint

would cure the deficiencies regarding Defendants José Rodríguez and Blanca Román. Under FRCP 15, a Plaintiff can amend its complaint "once as a matter of course within" the deadlines set by the federal rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). "In all other cases, a [Plaintiff] may

amend its [complaint] only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Id. Leave should In this case,

be given freely "when justice so requires."

Plaintiffs are requesting leave of Court to amend the complaint. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint. This Court has a preference for

CIVIL NO. 09-1923 (JP)

-4Dismissing the complaint against

resolving disputes on the merits.

the two Defendants because Plaintiffs mistakenly omitted them from the specific allegations would run counter to this Court's preference for resolving disputes on the merits. Furthermore, Defendants would

suffer no prejudice from allowing the amendments because this case is at such an early stage in the proceedings. However, the Court will not allow Plaintiffs to submit the complaint tendered because said complaint is still listing claims and Defendants which are no longer in this case. As set out in the

Amended Partial Judgment (No. 26), the only claims pending before this Court are the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims under the Fourth Amendment against Defendants José Rodríguez, Carlos Sánchez, Jorge Padilla, Juan Pacheco, Luz Torres, Blanca Román, and Juan Colón.1

Accordingly, Plaintiffs SHALL submit an amended complaint on or before June 14, 2010 with only the claims that are still pending before this Court. Also, in light of the Court's decision to allow Plaintiffs to amend the complaint, the argument by Defendants in their motion for judgment on the pleadings that there are no specific allegations as to Defendants José Rodríguez and Blanca Román is MOOT. agrees with Plaintiffs that the amended complaint The Court cures the

deficiencies pointed out by Defendants.

1.

I n said Judgment, the Court dismissed: (1) Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment, F o u r t e e n t h Amendment, and Conspiracy claims; and (2) Plaintiffs' claims against D e f e n d a n t s Pedro Toledo and PPR Supervisors John Doe 1-4.

CIVIL NO. 09-1923 (JP) B.

-5-

Plaintiff Preston's Excessive Force Claims

In their opposition, Plaintiffs also concede that there are no allegations that Plaintiff Preston is the victim of excessive force. Plaintiffs explain that this is the case because Plaintiffs did not make any such claims in the complaint. After considering the argument and examining the complaint, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The complaint brings no claims for Instead, the

excessive force on behalf of Plaintiff Preston.

complaint sets forth claims of excessive force on behalf of Plaintiff Igartúa. Accordingly, the Court determines that Defendants' request to dismiss the excessive force claims brought by Plaintiff Preston is MOOT. IV. CONCLUSION The Court: (1) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint (No. 31); and (2) FINDS AS MOOT Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (No. 27).

Plaintiffs SHALL submit an amended complaint on or before June 14, 2010 in accordance with this Opinion and Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 9th day of June, 2010.

s/Jaime Pieras, Jr. JAIME PIERAS, JR. U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE