Rios-Rodriguez v. Department of Justice - Commonwealth of P.R. et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff's Complaint at Docket No. 1 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach on 11/17/2022. (mrr)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-01291-RAM Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO LUIS ALBERTO RÍOS-RODRÍGUEZ, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 21-1291 (RAM) v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, United States District Judge Plaintiff Luis Alberto Ríos-Rodríguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se Complaint on June 17, 2021. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff claims that a group of Puerto Rico Commonwealth Court Judges imposed improper fines on him while he was representing himself in forma pauperis in a “a plot to cut [his] head [sic] to reject, to dismiss [his] constitutional right of self-defense in a traditional puertorrican [sic] way.” Id. at 2. He requests compensation for his emotional, physical, and mental damages and anguish ascending to $350,000.00. Throughout these proceedings, the Court has appointed Plaintiff with 3 different pro-bono counsel, all of whom have withdrawn. (Docket Nos. 6, 13, and 22). Case 3:21-cv-01291-RAM Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3 Civil No. 21-1291 Page 2   On August 24, 2022, the Court issued the following order: “By September 30, 2022, Plaintiff shall show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Docket No. 24). Plaintiff filed a motion in response (Docket No. 25). Therein, he cites to motions in various other cases; names and accuses a judge and legislator of wrongdoing; and attached multiple unidentified, and seemingly unrelated, pages of deposition transcripts. Id. The Court noted the motion. (Docket No. 26). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) allows a complaint to be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” When ruling on a motion to dismiss under this rule, courts must determine whether “all the facts alleged [in the complaint], when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, render the plaintiff's entitlement to relief plausible.” Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2011). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) gives the Court the authority to dismiss a claim in forma pauperis on the grounds of it being either: frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous if “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact, one that contains either inarguable legal conclusions or fanciful factual Case 3:21-cv-01291-RAM Document 27 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3 Civil No. 21-1291 Page 3   allegations.” Street v. Fair, 918 F.2d 269, 272-73 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Also, “the statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Upon reviewing Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court is compelled to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for being frivolous and failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Complaint references a jumble of lawsuits and motions. The facts alleged are largely incomprehensible and fail to articulate grounds for a cognizable legal claim. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket No.1 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 17th day of November 2022. S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH United States 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?