Calderon-Garnier v. Sanchez-Ramos
| Decision Date | 09 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 05-1495 (JP). |
| Citation | 531 F.Supp.2d 212 |
| Parties | Carlos CALDERON-GARNIER, Plaintiff v. Hon. Roberto SANCHEZ-RAMOS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Israel Roldán-González, Aguadilla, PR, for Plaintiff.
Francisco A. Ojeda-Diez, Esq., P.R. Department of Justice, Patricia Lorenzi, Esq., Delgado & Fernández Fernáandez Juncos Station, San Juan, PR, Eduardo A. Vera-Ramíirez, Esq., Eileen Landrón-Guardiola, Esq., Julio César Alejandro-Serrano, Esq., Landrón & Vera LLP, Guaynabo, PR, for Defendants.
The Court has before it motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Anabelle Rodríguez, Sila Calderón, Pedro G. Goyco, Cruz Estévez and Roberto Sánchez-Ramos (Nos. 101 and 103), and Plaintiff Carlos M. Calderón-Garnier's response in opposition to both motions (No. 115). For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants' motions are GRANTED.
Plaintiff Carlos M. Calderón-Gamier ("Calderón") is a former prosecutor with the Puerto Rico Department of Justice ("PRDOJ"). He alleges that Defendants suspended and terminated him from his position due to his political affiliation and in retaliation for exercising his freedom of speech. Pursuant to an Opinion and Order entered on June 13, 2006 (No. 39), only Plaintiffs Article 1802 claims, and Section 1983 claims for violations of the First Amendment and of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment remain before the Court.
The Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs claims are time-barred, that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
The parties stipulated to the following facts at the Initial Scheduling Conference held on October 27, 2006 (No. 72):
1. The Plaintiff was notified by letter dated December 23, 2003 by then Secretary of Justice Anabelle Rodríguez that he was suspended from employment as Auxiliary Prosecutor II and that she would recommend to then Governor Sila Calderón that he be removed from the position.
2. Anabelle Rodríguez's determination to suspend the Plaintiff from employment was based on the finding made by the Office of the Inspector General regarding a number of complaints made against Plaintiff.
3. On December 5, 2002, a complaint was Med by District Attorney Luis A. Vázquez-Marin. On March 31, 2008, the complaint was referred to the Office of the Inspector General for investigation. The complaint referred to events that occurred on November. 15, 2002 and on December 3 and 4, 2002. The complaint alleged that the Plaintiff incurred in conduct unbecoming, including lack of discipline, and reproachable conduct.
4. On June 23, 2003, another complaint was filed, by District Attorney Cruz Estévez de González regarding events occurring on June 13 and 16, 2003. The complaint alleged the Plaintiff engaged in insubordination and improper conduct toward then acting District Attorney Federico Torres. In addition, there were allegations regarding the Plaintiffs inaction on a domestic violence case.
5. On November 4, 2003, another complaint was filed against Plaintiff by then General Attorney Pedro G. Goyco for alleged acts of insubordination that occurred on October 30, 2003 at the Annual Public Ministry Convention.
6. The Office of the Inspector General investigated the complaints filed against Plaintiff and determined that the allegations made against Plaintiff in the complaints were true.
7. The Plaintiff requested by letter dated January 5, 2004 that an informal administrative hearing be held.
8. The case was then assigned to a hearing examiner who took charge of the informal hearing in the case.
9. By certified letter dated January 10, 2004, the hearing examiner appointed by the Department of Justice set the informal administrative hearing for January 21, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. On that date, the Plaintiff did not attend the hearing.
10. On January 21, 2004, due to the fact that the hearing examiner had not received by mail the confirmation card, and under, the possibility that Plaintiff had not received the January 10, 2004 notification, the hearing examiner issued a Resolution rescheduling the hearing for February 2, 2004 at 9:30 a.m.
11. On February 3, 2004, a new Resolution was issued rescheduling the informal administrative hearing for February 9, 2004. This rescheduling was made after' the Plaintiffs legal representation presented arguments regarding Plaintiffs treatment by the State Insurance Fund.
12. In the February 3, 2004 Resolution, Plaintiff was advised as to the different alternatives he had in order to give his version of the facts, to wit: in writing, personally, or through his attorneys.
13. In a Resolution dated February 6, 2004, the hearing was again rescheduled for February 13, 2004, after Plaintiffs counsel stated that he had not received the February 3, 2004, Resolution and he had a scheduling conflict.
14. On February 13, 2004, Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, but both of" his attorneys did appear.
15. Plaintiff was granted a final opportunity until February 19, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. to submit in writing his version of the facts regarding the allegations made against him.
16. Plaintiff failed to submit his version of the facts by the February 19, 2004 deadline.
17. On April 2, 2004 the hearing examiner, Reina Colón de Rodríguez, issued her report.
18. The report states that the hearing examiner concluded the Plaintiff incurred in a pattern of insubordination, lack of respect, and contempt to the orders of his supervisors, and to the disposition of law and norms that regulate the duties and obligations of all prosecutors, among other findings.
19. The report states the hearing examiner recommended to then Governor Sila Calderón to dismiss the Plaintiff from his position as Auxiliary Prosecutor II.
20. On May 12, 2004 then Governor. Sila Calderón addressed a letter to Plaintiff, dismissing him from employment.
21. The letter states that the report submitted by the Inspector General and the report submitted by the hearing examiner revealed that the acts proven against Plaintiff constituted just cause to dismiss him from his position as Auxiliary Prosecutor II, as per Article 5 of Act 23 of July 24, 1952, as amended.
22. The letter notified Plaintiff that he was dismissed from his position based on the authority granted to the Governor by Act 23, and that he had the right to appeal the Governor's determination to the Public Servants Appellate Commission.
23. Plaintiff has no document that states Anabelle Rodríguez was aware of his political affiliation.
24. Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen and a resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
25. Plaintiff was a prosecutor at the Department of Justice of Puerto Rico from 1995 to 2004.
26. At the time of his dismissal from the Department of Justice, Plaintiff had been assigned to the District Attorneys' Office in Arecibo, Caguas, Aibonito, and Fajardo.
27. In November of 2000, Sila Calderón, of the Popular Democratic Party ("PDP"), won the general elections. She took office in January of 2001.
28. Plaintiff was transferred to Aibonito on October 17, 2001, and to Fajardo on July 19, 2002.
29. On October 30, 2003, Plaintiff was at the premises of the Ministry ("Conferencia del Ministerio Público") and staged a protest.
30. A complaint for the acts of October 30, 2003 was filed by the Plaintiff before the Tourism Police Division of Carolina.
31. During his time at the District Attorney's Office in Fajardo, the Plaintiff was involved with an investigation into acts of vandalism and destruction of U.S. Navy property in Vieques.
The following are deemed uncontested facts by the Court as they were included in Defendants' motions for summary judgment, and were agreed upon, or were properly supported by evidence and not sufficiently opposed:
A. The Plaintiff was appointed Assistant District Attorney to the PRDOJ on March of 1995 by Governor Pedro J. Roselló.
B. Governor Roselló was affiliated with the New Progressive Party ("NPP").
C. The Plaintiff identified with the NPP's ideology.
D. While the Plaintiff worked at the Fajardo office he was required to work shifts that lasted for twenty-four hours and seven days per week.
E. The shifts were only required of a few prosecutors, all affiliated with the NPP.
F. Plaintiff claimed that this practice was unjust, unfair, dangerous and selectively required.
G. After the meeting held on November 18, 2002, Plaintiffs supervisor, Fajardo District Attorney Luis Vázquez-Marín, told Plaintiff that he was following orders from Defendant Goyco to watch Plaintiff closely and not to permit him to make decisions regarding criminal investigation without prior approval.
H. In January of 2003, Plaintiff issued subpoenas for a criminal investigation involving Commonwealth and municipal officials.
I. Those officials facilitated the use of public land by protest groups under the pretext of permitting the groups to hold a festival, allowing the protestors to vandalize property belonging to the U.S. Navy property.
J. Around April 30, 2003, Plaintiffs criminal investigation revealed that Commonwealth and municipal employees and equipment were used in' acts of vandalism against U.S. property in an incident where a U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife official was severely battered.
K. Soon after the Plaintiff reported the results of his investigation, Defendant Estévez told him he was removed from the investigation by order of Defendant Rodríguez.
L. Defendant Goyco warned Plaintiff that if he showed his poster during the conference, he would be terminated.
M. Defendant Goyco and another Department of Justice employee shouted at Plaintiff not to show his poster, and that they had enough trouble from the Plaintiff due to his investigations, and that he would be fired.
N. During the...
To continue reading
Request your trial