Vick v. Rodríguez
| Decision Date | 08 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil 21-1552 (DRD) |
| Parties | AARON VICK, Plaintiff, v. JANETTE RODRÍGUEZ, in her official capacity as Director of the Pretrial Services Program of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, known as OSAJ, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff, Aaron Vick's (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Vick”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction See Docket No. 2. Defendant Janette Rodríguez, in her official capacity as Director of the Pretrial Services Program of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (hereinafter, “OSAJ” for its Spanish acronym) filed a Response in Opposition thereto. See Docket No. 11. A Reply and Surreply ensued shortly thereafter. See Docket Nos. 16 and 22, respectively. In contrast, OSAJ moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 29. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition thereto. See Docket No. 32. A Reply ensued shortly thereafter. See Docket No. 35.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 2) and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Docket No. 29) is hereby GRANTED.
On November 4, 2021, Vick was charged in absentia by a Special Prosecutor designated by the Puerto Rico Panel of Independent Special Prosecutors (hereinafter, “PFEI”, for its Spanish acronym) in four (4) criminal complaints “that alleged the commission of four (4) felonies stemming from the botched sale of Covid-19 rapid tests to the Puerto Rico Department of Health in March of 2020. Amended Complaint, Docket No 13[1], ¶ 22. Vick is a resident of the state of Virginia. Id., ¶ 5. Plaintiff's charges include allegedly aiding and abetting an attorney and resident of Puerto Rico by the name of Juan Maldonado (hereinafter, “Maldonado”) in the commission of the charged criminal offenses. Id., ¶ 23. Maldonado was charged on a fifth offense in which Vick was not included. See id. However, no Puerto Rico officials were charged by the PFEI. See id.
Maldonado appeared before a Puerto Rico Magistrate accompanied by counsel as required by the Puerto Rico Rule of Criminal Procedure 6, wherein he was informed of the charges he was facing, and probable cause was found for his arrest. Id., ¶¶ 24-25. Vick was charged in absentia for the aforementioned offenses. Id., ¶ 25. Later that same day, bail was set for $50, 000.00 as to each of the alleged offenses as to each of the defendants. Therefore, Maldonado's bail amounted to $250, 000.00 whereas Vick's bail was set for $200, 000.00. Id. Thereafter, Maldonado's bail was deferred pursuant to Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.1 and 218 following OSAJ's recommendation to that effect. Id., ¶ 26.
Vick was absent from the Rule 6 hearing that was held on November 4, 2021, because he was allegedly never informed of it nor contacted by anyone from the PFEI. Since Vick was not present at the Rule 6 hearing, no determination was made as to whether his bail would also be deferred. Id., ¶ 27.
According to the Amended Complaint, once Vick learned about the criminal charges that had been filed against him, he retained counsel, who began to take steps to arrange for Vick's voluntary surrender and to seek deferment of the bail imposed. Id., ¶ 28. In furtherance thereof, counsel held three (3) separate telephone conferences with OSAJ's supervisors. Id., ¶ 29. Defendant Rodríguez participated in the last two conferences which were held on November 12 and 16, 2021. Id. During the November 16, 2021, telephone conference, Vick's counsel informed Rodríguez they would make him available to be interviewed by OSAJ by videoconference as part of the investigative process that OSAJ is required to conduct in order to determine whether deferred bail can be recommended. Director Rodríguez declined the invitation by stating that OSAJ can only conduct interviews in person after the criminal defendant is under custody of the Puerto Rico law enforcement officers. Id., ¶ 30.
In turn, Vick argues that the position taken by Rodríguez is contrary to the Privileges and Immunity Clause and OSAJ's enabling act and its Uniform Procedures Regulations, which affords the entity jurisdiction over every citizen charged with a criminal offense for which imposition of bail is mandatory. Id., ¶ 31. Plaintiff further claims that he meets all the criteria to warrant that his bail be deferred just like Maldonado's (id., ¶ 32) but has not appeared before a Puerto Rico Magistrate for a Puerto Rico R. Crim. Rule P. 6 hearing. According to Plaintiff, Director Rodríguez and OSAJ's employees under her supervision have taken the position that they may not recommend that Vick's bail be deferred because they deem that OSAJ will not be able to adequately supervise him during his pretrial release solely premised on the fact that he is not a Puerto Rico resident. Id., ¶ 33. Vick alleges that Director Rodríguez has maintained her position notwithstanding the fact that his attorneys have conveyed that his Virginia residency may not and [cannot] be taken, directly or indirectly, as a factor to deny him the deferred bail to which he would be entitled if he was a Puerto Rico resident. Id., ¶ 34. Lastly, Plaintiff claims to live under constant threat that extradition proceedings may be initiated at any time. Id., ¶ 47. As a result of the above, he has filed the instant Complaint and request for injunctive relief seeking the protections under the Privileges and Immunities Clause as he does not have the financial means to post a $200, 000.00 bail that was imposed in absentia and he is entitled to the same treatment received by Maldonado, who is a Puerto Rico resident. Id., ¶ 35.
In turn, the Defendant argues that to this date, Vick has not appeared before the state court and met with members of OSAJ. Docket No. 11 at 3. Accordingly, telephone calls between counsel and OSAJ cannot replace the initial process that begins with Plaintiff's appearance in state court. Additionally, the Defendant claims that “OSAJ's role is not the one of a prosecutor with whom the accused can negotiate his surrender.” Id. at 3. Therefore, the Defendant contends that Id. According to Director Rodríguez, “OSAJ cannot file a recommendation before the court obtains jurisdiction over the accused. Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 29 at p. 9. Lastly, OSAJ argues that “plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is not ripe for adjudication because it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or indeed may not occur at all.” Id. at 4; see Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998).
It is well known that “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo freezing an existing situation so as to permit the trial court, upon full adjudication of the case's merits, more effectively to remedy discerned wrongs.” CCM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 48 F.3d 618, 620 (1st Cir. 1995). The Court also highlights that a preliminary injunction is considered an “extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1, 29 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249, (2008)); Carolina Catering Corp. v. Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC, 2019 WL 2003996 .
In order for a district court to grant a preliminary injunction, the following four elements must be satisfied: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent interim relief, (3) a balance of equities in the plaintiff's favor, and (4) service of the public interest.” Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow Treecare Sci. Advancements, Inc., 794 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2015); see, also, Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). “Though the district court enjoys considerable discretion in applying this test, its decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction must be supported by adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.” JL Powell Clothing LLC v. Powell, 590 Fed.Appx. 3, 4 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing TEC Eng'g Corp. v. Budget Molders Supply, Inc., 82 F.3d 542, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1996)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P 8(a)(2). Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement [with] more than labels and conclusions.” See Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2011) (“in order to ‘show' an entitlement to relief a complaint must contain enough factual material ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).' ”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff must, and is now required to, present allegations that “nudge [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible” in order to comply with the requirements of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial