Vazquez-Vazquez v. Corrections Administration of Puerto Rico et al

Filing 15

ORDER Dismissing the Complaint Without Prejudice. Judgment to follow forthwith. Signed by Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez on 3/3/2014.(VCC)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

MARTIN VAZQUEZ VAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff,

v.
Civil Case. NO. 12-1181 (PG)
PAROLE BOARD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PUERTO RICO; PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
Defendants.

ORDER
The

plaintiff,

Commonwealth

of

Martin

Puerto

Vazquez
Rico’s

Vazquez,

is

Department

of

a

prisoner

of

Corrections

the
and

Rehabilitation. This action against the Parole Board of the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and the Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. §1983
purports to expedite the proceedings of the Parole Board regarding a
petition filed by the plaintiff.
Aside from the fact that, to this date, summons has not yet been
served on defendants in clear violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), we find
that this Court’s limited jurisdiction was improperly pleaded.
“Federal

courts

are

courts

of

limited

jurisdiction,”

possessing

“only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” See Gunn v.
Minton, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (citing Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct.1673, 128
L.Ed.2d 391 (1994)). Congress has authorized the federal district courts
to exercise original jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. §
1331.
Moreover, it is well settled law that the allegations contained in
a prisoner complaint are held “to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers....” See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Such a complaint should

Civil No. 12-1181 (PG)

Page 2

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief. See Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21;
see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 [78 S.Ct. 99, 101–102, 2
L.Ed.2d 80] (1957).”
Applying these principles to petitioner’s complaint, we conclude
that none of plaintiff’s allegations establish a particular violation of
his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.1

Actually, from the

face of the Complaint it is patent that plaintiff’s claims only concern
deficiencies with the proceedings before the Parole Board, such as lack
of compliance with the terms set forth by statute and failure to notify a
hearing. See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶2-7. These allegations are insufficient to
require any further proceedings before this Court. As such, plaintiff’s
only course of redress is the Court of Appeals of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, which has exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions from
the Parole Board. See Chapter IV of the Uniform Administrative Procedure
Act of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 3 L.P.R.A. §2171.
Hence, the action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 27, 2014.

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

1

Plaintiff merely states the following: “That all my rights have been violated
by the agencies keeping me confined after I have complied with all my
rehabilitation program.” See Docket No. 10 at ¶10.