Guadalupe-Bá v. A-Z
| Decision Date | 17 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 13-1529 (GAG) |
| Parties | RAUL GUADALUPE-BÁEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POLICE OFFICERS A-Z, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Once again this court reviews a pleading standard challenge in a police brutality case. Raúl Guadalupe-Báez ("Plaintiff" or "Guadalupe"), Ivelissa Báez ("Báez"), and Antonia Hernández ("Hernández") (collectively "Plaintiffs") bring this action seeking compensatory money damages against named and unnamed defendants for the violation of their constitutional rights stemming from the shooting of Plaintiff by members of the Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD") and the San Lorenzo Municipal Police (collectively "Defendants"). (Docket No. 18.) This action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for alleged violations of Guadalupe's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Id. Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide claims arising under the laws of Puerto Rico under Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico. P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, §§ 5141, 5142.
Plaintiffs brought this action against Unnamed Police Officers A-Z, claiming they were reckless and grossly negligent during their intervention with Guadalupe, when they used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. Furthermore, they claim Hector Pesquera ("Pesquera"), Superintendent of the PRPD at the time of the events; José Román-Abreu ("Román"), Mayor of the Municipality of San Lorenzo; Guillermo Somoza-Colombani ("Somoza"), Secretary of Justice at the time of the events; Luis Sánchez-Betances ("Sánchez"), Secretary of Justice at the time of filing the complaint, (collectively "Supervisor Defendants") are responsible for the negligent training, negligent entrustment, and negligentsupervision of Police Officers A-Z, which amounts to deliberate indifference and reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Id. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim Héctor Orozco ("Orozco") from the Criminal Investigation Center in Caguas and Special Investigations Bureau Officer Carlos Rosa ("Rosa") obstructed justice and conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of the right to seek judicial redress for the shooting of Guadalupe by Unnamed Police Officers A-Z. (Docket No. 18 ¶¶ 32; 100-102.)1
Co-Defendants Orozco, Rosa, Pesquera, Somoza and Sánchez move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (B)(6). (Docket No. 20.)2 Namely, these Defendants aim to dismiss Plaintiffs' allegations grounded in supervisory liability, conspiracy, and the Puerto Rico general tort statute. (Docket No. 20.) Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs Báez and Hernández lack standing. Id. at 13. Plaintiffs timely opposed. (Docket No. 21.)
After reviewing the parties' submissions and pertinent law, the court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss at Docket No. 20.
"The general rules of pleading require a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This short and plain statement need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss an action against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter "to state a claim to relief thatis plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The court must decide whether the complaint alleges enough facts to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555. In so doing, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir. 2008). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not 'show[n]' -'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)).
Sometime between the late hours of July 8, 2012 and early hours of the following day, Guadalupe, of legal age and a resident of Caguas, Puerto Rico, was driving his four-track Honda ATV Model TRX around the Municipality of San Lorenzo. (Docket No. 18 ¶¶ 41- 42.) As he decided to return home, Guadalupe noticed several PRPD police vehicles approaching. Id. ¶ 43. He left the area and, as he was driving on Road 183, a police car began to follow him. Id. ¶ 44. The police car sped towards his vehicle, approaching him very closely. Id. At that time, no other vehicles were in the area. Id. ¶ 45. Guadalupe was not armed. Id. ¶ 46. Fearful of an impact, Guadalupe tried to turn at the next intersection. Id. ¶ 47. While making a turn at the intersection by the San Lorenzo Municipal Police Station, Guadalupe heard a gunshot. Id. Just then, he felt a strong pain in the right side of his abdomen, the side that was facing the police car. Id.
Police Officer A shot Guadalupe. Id. ¶¶ 48; 53. As a result, Guadalupe's vehicle stopped and he fell to the ground. Id. ¶ 54. The Police Officers held Guadalupe under arrest, they seized and searched him but found no evidence of criminal activity. Id. ¶¶ 55-56. Guadalupe was taken in an ambulance to the Medical Center in Río Piedras. Id. ¶¶ 57-56. As result of the gunshot, Guadalupe suffered multiple bowel perforations and underwent surgery. Id. ¶¶ 59-60. Guadalupewas never charged criminally for the events that took place the night of the shooting. (Docket No. 18 ¶ 61.) His vehicle was seized and never returned. Id. ¶ 62.
Police Officer Howard Delgado ("Delgado") was among the first officers that helped Guadalupe as he was lying on the ground. Id. ¶ 63. Delgado denies having shot Guadalupe, claiming that the bullet used in the shooting was .40 Caliber, and therefore not from his weapon. Id. ¶ 64. However, Delgado acknowledged that excessive force was used in Guadalupe's arrest but did not identify the author of the shooting. Id. ¶¶ 66-67.
The PRPD initiated an investigation. Id. ¶ 71. Orozco from the Criminal Investigation Center ("CIC") in Caguas was in charge of the investigation. Id. Orozco failed to identify the author of the shooting and, ultimately terminated the investigation, without filing any charges. Id. ¶ 72. Orozco contacted Báez, Guadalupe's mother, to inform her that three (3) individuals were involved in the shooting of her son but failed to disclose the identity of the individuals. Id. ¶ 73-74. Orozco told Báez he would contact her shortly with more information but never contacted her again. Id. ¶ 75. The Special Investigations Bureau also initiated an investigation. Id. ¶ 76. Said investigation was led by Rosa. Id. Rosa also failed to identify the author of Guadalupe's shooting. Id. ¶ 77. At some point, Rosa terminated the investigation. Id. Rosa notified Báez that the driver of the patrol car that chased Guadalupe had been interviewed but did not disclose his identity. Id. ¶ 78.
Plaintiffs sustain that, as a result of Defendants' acts and/or omissions, they have suffered damages. Id. ¶ 81. Because of the shooting, Guadalupe suffered severe abdominal injuries, emotional trauma, and fear of imminent death. Id. Therefrom, he has suffered physical handicaps due to the pain and loss of physical endurance. Id. Guadalupe's injuries are of permanent and continuing nature. Id. Plaintiffs Báez and Hernández have suffered intense emotional damages as a result of the near death of their son/grandson, seeing him in such critical condition, as well as their anguish upon seeing him severely impaired in his physical condition. Id. Plaintiffs have further suffered by Defendants' inaction regarding the shooting, as well as the conspiracy to cover up theshooting, obstruction to their day in court and enforcement of their legal rights in court. Id.
As a threshold matter, the court addresses the standing issue raised by Defendants in their motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 20.) This issue was unopposed by Plaintiffs. (Docket No. 21.) Defendants argue that Báez and Hernández lack standing to sue in their individual capacities under Section 1983. "Only persons who have been subject to constitutional deprivations may bring actions under § 1983." Nuñez González v. Vázquez Garced, 389 F.Supp. 2d 214, 208 (D.P.R. 2005); see also Robles Vázquez v. Tirado García, 110 F.3d 204, 206 n.4 (1st Cir. 1997) (). Here, Báez and Hernández claim personal damages for the violation of Guadalupe's civil rights. Consequently, Plaintiffs Báez and Hernández's claims under Section 1983 do not proceed as a matter of law. Thus, their claims under Section 1983 are DISMISSED.
Now, the court turns to the substantive arguments raised by Defendants' in their motion to dismiss at Docket No. 20.
Time and again courts have discussed the steep threshold that a plaintiff has to cross to adequately...
To continue reading
Request your trial