Badillo-Santiago v. Andreu-Garcia

• Citation: 70 F.Supp.2d 84
• Decision Date: 05 October 1999
• Docket Number: No. CIV. 98-1993(SEC).,CIV. 98-1993(SEC).
• Parties: Ramon BADILLO-SANTIAGO, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Hon. Jose ANDREU-GARCIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

70 F.Supp.2d 84

Ramon BADILLO-SANTIAGO, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Hon. Jose ANDREU-GARCIA, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV. 98-1993(SEC).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

October 5, 1999.

Ramon Badillo-Santiago, New York, N.Y., pro se.

Marie L. Cortes-Cortes, DOJ of P.R., Federal Litigation Division, San Juan, Jose Dapena-Thompson, St., Ponce, Alfredo Fernandez-Martinez, Lilliam E. Mendoza-Toro, as amicus curiae, U.S.A.O. District of P.R., Civil Division, San Juan, P.R., for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

CASELLAS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are several motions to dismiss filed by co-defendants Hon. José A. Fuentes Agostini, Secretary of the Department of Justice of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Docket # 6); by Hon. José Andreu García, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, and by Mercedes M. Bauermeister, Esq., Administrator of the Office of Courts Administration (Docket # 7); and by Hon. Julio Berríos Jiménez, Judge of the Superior Court of Puerto Rico (Docket # 8). The motions to dismiss were properly opposed by plaintiff (Dockets # 15, 16, 20). The Court granted leave, and pursuant to said leave, the United States of America filed an amicus curiae brief urging the denial of the motions to dismiss (Docket # 33).

For the reasons stated below in this Opinion and Order, the motions to dismiss filed by Mr. Fuentes Agostini (Docket # 6), and by Judge Andreu García and Ms. Bauermeister (Docket # 7) shall be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In addition, the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Berríos Jiménez (Docket # 8) shall be GRANTED.

Applicable Law — Standard for Motions to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

In Iacampo v. Hasbro, Inc., 929 F.Supp. 562 (D.R.I.1996), a federal district court cogently held that, "[l]ike a battlefield surgeon sorting the hopeful from the hopeless, a motion to dismiss invokes a form of legal triage, a paring of viable claims from those doomed by law." Id. at 567. See also Guckenberger v. Boston University, 957 F.Supp. 306, 313 (D.Mass.1997).

In fact, Rule 12(b)(6) motions such as this one have no purpose other than to "test the formal sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief... [They are not, however,] a procedure for resolving a contest about the facts or the merits of the case." 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, supra § 1356, at 294 (2d ed.1990). Only where the complaint fails to comply with the liberal standard provided in Rule 8(a), that is, to provide a "short and plain statement ... showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," will it be subject to dismissal under 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). See also Federal Practice and Procedure, supra at 296; Podell v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 701 (S.D.N.Y.1994). It is the moving party which has the burden of proving that no claim exists. Federal Practice and Procedure, supra at 115 (1996 Supp.). See also Clapp v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 862 F.Supp. 1050 (S.D.N.Y.1994).

In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss, courts must construe the complaint "in the light most favorable to plaintiff" and treat her allegations as though they were true. Federal Practice and Procedure, supra at 304. See also Rockwell v. Cape Cod Hosp., 26 F.3d 254 (1st Cir.1994). "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also Wyatt v. City of Boston, 35 F.3d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1994); Schroeder v. De Bertolo, 879 F.Supp. 173, 175 (D.Puerto Rico, 1995).

Courts are not, however, required to "accept every allegation made by the complainant no matter how conclusory or generalized." U.S. v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d 108, 115 (1st Cir.1992). As the First Circuit has held, "[t]he pleading requirement, however, is `not entirely a toothless tiger.'" Doyle v. Hasbro, 103 F.3d 186, 190 (1st Cir.1996), quoting The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1989). This Court need not accept plaintiff's "bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like." Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996).

Factual Background

As mandated by the standard under Rule 12(b)(6), we shall take the relevant facts from plaintiff's complaint (Docket # 1). Plaintiff, Dr. Ramón Badillo Santiago, pro se,¹ filed the above-captioned action on August 31, 1998 against the following defendants: Hon. José Andreu García, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Judicial System; Mercedes M. Bauermeister, in her official capacity as Director of the Puerto Rico Office of Courts Administration; Wilfredo Girau Toledo, in his official capacity as Director of the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, represented by Hon. José Fuentes Agostini, Secretary of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice, included in his official capacity; and Superior Court Judge Julio Berríos Jiménez, in his official and personal capacity. He premised the Court's jurisdiction on the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Plaintiff also presents claims of violations of due process and equal protection of the laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.²

At the time of the filing of the complaint, plaintiff was 78 years old; he is a resident of the state of Florida. In his complaint, plaintiff avers that he is hearing-impaired. Plaintiff was subpoenaed to appear in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Bayamón Part, on September 2, 3, and 8, 1997, where co-defendant Judge Julio Berríos Jiménez presided over a civil trial in which plaintiff was the defendant. Plaintiff states that because he is hearing-impaired, he requested "appropriate auxiliary aids" for his condition to the presiding judge before the start of the trial, to which Judge Berríos allegedly responded that he did not know of such aids.

On September 3, 1998, plaintiff claims that he made another request for auxiliary aids, which was also denied by Judge Berríos. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on September 8, 1998, alleging that the ADA had been violated; said motion for new trial was also denied. The motion for new trial was accompanied by an audiometric evaluation by an audiologist. Plaintiff states: "The judge ordered the Court Officer to instruct me to use a wheel-secretary (sic) chair and authorize me to move around to hear the proceedings. Initially I complied but considering it a humiliating and ineffective aid I discontinued his recommendations. I also ... declined to further testify in the trial under these conditions." (Docket # 1, at page 3).

Plaintiff avers that the Court knew since October 25, 1995, when he answered the complaint in the civil case, that he was hearing-impaired. He further avers that the judge did not provide him with reasonable accommodation, and instead ignored him and did not inform him regarding any policies to deal with disabilities by the Office of Courts Administration of Puerto Rico. "In addition, he never consulted me about the hearing aids that I considered will be helpful to my condition according to C.F.R. Part. 35." Id.

He claims that the Office of Courts Administration and the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority are liable because they failed to comply with the ADA and the applicable federal regulations. Plaintiff states: "Both defendants did not act affirmatively to articulate and communicate a public and effective policy and procedures to deal with reasonable accommodations for the disabled. Also, they [did] not inform the public of their rights and fail (sic) to train effectively the judges and personnel in this area of law." Id. at 4.

Finally, plaintiff claims: "All defendants are required by law to comply with the [ADA] and its regulations. By not acting affirmatively in this area, and also refusing to provide a reasonable accommodati[on] they have violated the mandate of this federal act. In addition, the treatment received by my person also violated my constitutional rights of equal protection of law and due process of law and might also be a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id., emphasis added.

Plaintiff claims five million dollars in damages plus costs.

Applicable Law and Analysis — Whether defendants are amenable to suit under the ADA

In enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that there are some 43 million Americans who have one or more disabilities and that these individuals encounter discrimination "in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). Congress has stated that one of the purposes of the ADA is "to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4).

Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Defendants do not dispute that the government entities being sued in this case, through its heads being sued in their official capacities, are public entities within the meaning of the statute. However, co-defendant Judge Berríos Jiménez has contested the applicability of the ADA to his person, alleging that he is not a "public entity" within the meaning of the statute and thus cannot be held liable to plaintiff under the ADA.

We find that...