Miller v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Carmen T. Lugo-Irizarry, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Judgment will enter DISMISSING Plaintiff's federal law claims WITH PREJUDICE. Case closed. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 9/27/2013.(mrj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
1
2
3
4
GEORGE A. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 13-1347 (JAF)
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,
et al.,
Defendants.
5
6
7
8
OPINION AND ORDER
We consider the defendants’ motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment immunity
and absolute immunity grounds.
I.
9
10
11
12
13
George Miller, a disabled veteran, alleges that the defendants conspired with his
14
former landlord to discriminate against him based on the eviction case his landlord filed
15
against him in Commonwealth court.
16
discriminated against him on account of his disability. (Docket No. 2.)
Background
Miller also claims his former landlord
17
Miller filed a pro-se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil
18
Rights Act seeking redress for alleged constitutional violations against multiple
19
defendants, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Office of Court
20
Administration, the Judicial Center of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Police
21
Department, and Superior Court Judge Carmen Lugo-Irizarry. (Docket No. 2.) The
Civil No. 13-1347 (JAF)
-2-
1
Commonwealth defendants, including Judge Carmen Lugo-Irizarry, moved to dismiss.
2
(Docket No. 17).
3
4
5
6
7
II.
Legal Standard
A.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
8
A plaintiff’s complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it alleges sufficient facts
9
to establish a plausible claim for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
10
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In
11
assessing a claim’s plausibility, the court must construe the complaint in the plaintiff’s
12
favor, accept all non-conclusory allegations as true, and draw any reasonable inferences
13
in favor of the plaintiff. Rodríguez-Ramos v. Hernández-Gregorat, 685 F.3d 34, 39-40
14
(1st Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
15
B.
Claims Raised Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
16
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against those who, acting under color of
17
state law, violate a plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
18
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4(1980).
19
III.
20
Discussion
21
Defendants argue that because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not
22
consented to be sued they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in their official
23
capacities. (Docket No. 30 at 17-18.) We agree.
Civil No. 13-1347 (JAF)
-3-
1
The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars suits in federal
2
courts by private parties seeking damages that would be paid from the state treasury.
3
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979). Unless the state consents to be sued, the
4
Eleventh Amendment proscribes suits against a state or one of its departments. Pennhurst
5
State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Immunity extends to
6
state agencies and their officials when the agency or institution is characterized as an arm
7
or alter ego of the state or when it should be treated instead as a political subdivision of
8
the state. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280
9
(1977); see also Frensenius Medical Care Cardiovascular Resources, Inc. v. Puerto Rico
10
and Caribbean Cardiovascular Center Corp., 322 F.3d 56, 63 (1st Cir. 2003) (twin goals
11
of the Eleventh Amendment—protection of the state's treasury and of its dignitary
12
interests—explicitly govern the arm-of-the-state analysis.).
13
Puerto Rico enjoys the protection of the Eleventh Amendment. See Maysonet-Robles v.
14
Cabrero, 323 F.3d 43, 53 (1st Cir.2003).
15
The Commonwealth of
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has decided that neither a state nor its agencies
16
are “persons” susceptible to being sued under Section 1983.
17
Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Quern, 440 U.S. at 339–42.
18
19
Will v. Michigan
Here, because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including its instrumentalities,
has not consented to be sued, we dismiss Miller’s claims with prejudice.
20
In addition to the claims brought against the Commonwealth, Miller has also
21
asserted claims that Respondent Irizarry, a Commonwealth superior court judge, engaged
22
in a conspiracy to deprive Miller of his rights. The violations that Miller alleges against
Civil No. 13-1347 (JAF)
-4-
1
Defendant Irizarry are judicial in nature and were made in conjunction with her role in
2
his Commonwealth case.
3
It is well settled that when judges are performing judicial functions they are
4
absolutely immune from civil liability.
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363-64
5
(1978); see also Francis v. Crafts, 203 F.2d 809, 811 (1st Cir. 1953) (Judicial immunity
6
from civil liability for acts done in their official functions is firmly and deeply rooted in
7
traditions of Anglo-American Law). Even where, as here, judges are accused of deciding
8
a case due to improper motives, they are entitled to absolute immunity. Guzman-Rivera
9
v. Lucena-Zabala, 642 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir. 2011); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554
10
(1967) (“[I]mmunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and
11
corruptly”).
12
Judicial immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances: For actions not
13
taken in the judge’s judicial capacity; and for actions taken in complete absence of all
14
jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
15
16
Here, Miller fails to allege any conduct that would defeat absolute immunity.
Therefore, we dismiss Miller’s claims against Respondent Irizarry with prejudice.
17
Finally, the defendants argue that Miller has failed to state a claim. (Docket
18
No. 17 at 6-7.) We see no need to address this since the reasons stated above foreclose
19
Miller’s claims.
Civil No. 13-1347 (JAF)
1
2
3
4
5
6
-5IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Docket No. 17), is
GRANTED. The plaintiff’s federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 27th day of September, 2013.
9
10
11
S/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?