Sanchez-Rodriguez v. Governor of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 5/16/2013. (mrj)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

NICOMEDES RODRIGUEZ SANCHEZ,
et al.,
Civil No. 12-1640 (JAF)
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
et al.,
Defendants.
5
6

OPINION AND ORDER

7

We must decide if this complaint alleges sufficient facts that, if true, the allegations

8

would constitute a Fourth Amendment violation based on the use of excessive force to

9

restrain an individual.

10
11
12
13
14

On August 9, 2011, Puerto Rico Police Department Officers Gerardo Maldonado-

15

Rivera and Frederick Sebastián-Muñíz, along with an unidentified third officer, responded to

16

a criminal complaint filed by Maracelys Meléndez-Maisonet, regarding Nicomedes

17

Rodríguez-Sánchez. Rodríguez-Sánchez, who was seventy-five years old at the time, claims

18

that the officers arrested him in an extremely rough manner: After restraining Rodríguez-

19

Sánchez with handcuffs, he says the officers picked him up in the air and bashed his head

20

against a patrol car before they threw him into the backseat, where Rodríguez-Sánchez lost

21

consciousness. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3.) While being transported to jail, Sebastián- Muñíz

I.
Background

Civil No. 12-1640 (JAF)

-2-

1

warned Rodríguez-Sánchez not to mention his rough treatment. According to Rodríguez-

2

Sánchez, he was held for two to three hours before he was given a citation and released.

3

Rodríguez-Sánchez filed a complaint against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

4

Sebastián-Muñíz, Rivera-Maldonado, and an unknown police officer, claiming excessive

5

force, illegal arrest and assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional

6

distress. (Docket No. 1.) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico moved to dismiss. (Docket

7

No. X.)

8
9
10
11
12

A plaintiff’s complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it alleges sufficient facts to

13

establish a plausible claim for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

14

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In assessing

15

a claim’s plausibility, the court must construe the complaint in the plaintiff’s favor, accept all

16

non-conclusory allegations as true, and draw any reasonable inferences in favor of

17

plaintiff. San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vila, 687 F.3d 465, 471 (1st Cir.

18

2012) (citation omitted).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

II.
Legal Standard

III.
Discussion
A.

Complaint Against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Defendants claim they are protected by the Eleventh Amendment because it bars suits

26

against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, its agencies, and government officials acting in

27

their official capacities. However, the complaint does not state whether the Defendants are

28

being sued in their individual or official capacities. (Docket No. 4.) The First Circuit has

29

adopted a course-of-the-proceedings test to determine whether a plaintiff has brought an

Civil No. 12-1640 (JAF)

-3-

1

individual or official capacity suit against a government official. See Powell v.

2

Alexander, 391 F.3d 1, 22 (1st Cir.2004). The test attempts to strike a fair balance between a

3

defendant's right to have notice of liability and a plaintiff’s need for flexibility in developing

4

a case. Id. at 22. The court should evaluate “the substance of the pleadings and the course of

5

proceedings in order to determine whether the suit is for individual or personal

6

liability.” Id. (quoting Pride v. Does, 997 F.2d 712, 715 (10th Cir. 1993)). Since Rodríguez-

7

Sánchez is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his complaint to have been brought

8

against Defendants in both their individual and official capacities.

9

The text of the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from federal lawsuits by

10

citizens of foreign states. U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The Supreme Court has held that

11

principles of sovereign dignity, inherent in the Constitution itself, extend states’ immunity

12

beyond the textual boundaries of the Eleventh Amendment to include immunity from suits

13

by a state’s own citizens. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 727–29 (1999). For the purposes

14

of Eleventh Amendment analysis, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is treated as if it were a

15

state. Díaz–Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 33 (1st Cir. 2006).

16

Supreme Court precedent, the First Circuit has held that suits against officials in their official

17

capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Fred v. Aponte Roque, 916 F.2d 37, 39

18

(1st Cir.1990) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.,491 U.S. 58, 68–71 (1989)). As such, all

19

claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed. All claims

20

for damages against Defendants in their individual capacities may proceed.

21
22
23
24

B.

25

officers violated Rodríguez-Sánchez’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether those rights

26

were clearly established at the time. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

Consistent with

Complaint Against Individual Officers
Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity gives rise to two questions: Whether the

Civil No. 12-1640 (JAF)

-4-

1

Rodríguez-Sánchez has alleged gratuitous violence at the hands of police officers,

2

specifically that they “bashed” his head against a patrol car while he was restrained with

3

handcuffs. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3.) Such conduct, if true, is clearly a violation of an

4

established constitutional right. See, e.g., Raiche v. Pietroski, 623 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2010)

5

(officer's conduct in physically removing motorcyclist from his parked motorcycle and

6

slamming him into pavement during traffic stop was unreasonable under the circumstances

7

and, thus, in violation of motorcyclist’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable

8

seizure). Although excessive force can sometimes be reasonable, Morelli v. Webster, 552

9

F.3d 12, 24 (1st Cir. 2009), it is impossible to know the reasonableness of the force used here

10

without further development of the record.

11

complaint are, therefore, sufficient to withstand Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion because,

12

if they are true, they constitute a clear violation of Rodríguez-Sánchez's constitutional

13

rights. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED, although we recognize that the

14

officers can bring any other request at any time, based on further development of the record.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

24
25
26

S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

The allegations of Rodríguez-Sánchez’s

Conclusion

IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16th day of May, 2013.