Vazquez-Marin v. Diaz et al

Filing 42

OPINION AND ORDER Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 3/3/2014.(VCC)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

JOSE VAZQUEZ MARIN,
Plaintiff,

v.
Civil Case. NO. 12-1177 (PG)
EMILIO DIAZ, POLICE SUPERINTENDENT
POLICIA DE PUERTO RICO, ET AL.
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 3, 2012 alleging that the
Puerto Rico Police Department and officer Reinaldo Pacheco deliberately
failed to file and prosecute a case after he complained of being the
victim of aggression at the hands of another inmate at the Las Cucharas
Correctional Facility in Ponce, Puerto Rico. See Docket No. 3.
On July 18, 2012 co-defendant the Police Department of Puerto Rico
filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to the Police
Department, Reynaldo Pacheco, Emilio Diaz and Luis Fortuño-Burset. See
Docket No. 14.1 The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss on December 9,
2013. See Docket No. 24. Thereafter, the Court set an Initial Scheduling
Conference for February 25, 2014.
Upon

careful

review

of

the

documents

in

the

record,

the

Court

DISMISSES the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a viable
cause of action against defendants.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
In

determining

whether

dismissal

of

a

complaint

is

appropriate

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must keep in mind that “[t]he
1

The Motion to Dismiss claimed that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust
administrative remedies prior to filing suit because he failed to seek judicial
review of the decision issued by the Correctional Facility before the Puerto
Rico Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. See Docket No. 14. The Court
reasoned that the petitioner was only required to properly exhaust internal
administrative remedies and extending a requirement to seek judicial review
before state courts was an onerous hurdle that defied Congressional intent. See
Docket No. 24.

Civil No. 12-1177 (PG)

Page 2

general rules of pleading require a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief… this short and
plain statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the…
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Gargano v. Liberty Intern.
Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal citations
and

quotation

marks

omitted).

Nevertheless,

“[a]

claim

has

facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
The District Court may sua sponte dismiss a claim pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) without notice where it is “patently obvious” that
the plaintiff cannot possibly prevail based on the facts alleged in the
Complaint.

Rollins

v.

Wackenhut

Services,

703

F.3d

122

(D.C.

Cir.

2012)(citing Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C.
Cir. 1990)). That is precisely the case here.
Plaintiff claims that defendants’ actions constitute a violation of
his civil rights. See Docket No. 3 at page 5. To establish a violation
under 42 U.S.C. §1983, at least two elements must be met. First, the
plaintiff

must

have

suffered

the

deprivation

of

federally

protected

rights, privileges or immunities as the result of action taken. See Chism
v. Price, 457 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1972); Beaumont v. Morgan, 427
F.2d 667, 670-71 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 882, 91 S.Ct. 120, 27
L.Ed.2d 121 (1970). Second, such depravation must have been caused by a
person acting under color of state law. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167,
81 S.Ct.473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961).
In the case at hand, plaintiff did not put forth any allegations
that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level…” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. Even reading the complaint in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, his Complaint does not establish any constitutional violation
against the Police Department or Reinaldo Pacheco. Merely stating, as
plaintiff does, that his civil rights were violated because the Police
did not file a criminal complaint regarding his alleged assault does not
suffice to establish a constitutional claim, much less when defendants

Civil No. 12-1177 (PG)

Page 3

put forth evidence that the Police Department filed a criminal complaint
after the initial interviews and investigation.2
In fact, at the Initial Scheduling Conference the Court decided
that, after examining the Complaint, it would not appoint a pro-bono
attorney to represent plaintiff given that the allegations did not state
a cause for the relief sought. See Docket No. 41.
Furthermore, plaintiff attributes the alleged failure to prosecute
to “the nature of the cases” for which he was convicted. See Docket No. 3
at page 3. As previously stated, such vague and inconclusive statements
do not demonstrate an abridgment of constitutional protections.
II. CONCLUSION
After examining each of the allegations in the Complaint, it is
fitting to conclude that plaintiff simply does not state a viable claim
as to any of the defendants, thus warranting dismissal. In light of the
aforementioned, this Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 3, 2014.

S/ JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
JUAN M. PÉREZ-GIMÉNEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The record shows that the Police Department filed Criminal Complaint No. 20113-358-01669. See Docket No. 40.