Doe v. Order of Saint Benedict
| Decision Date | 20 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 11-1406 (JAF) |
| Parties | JOHN DOE 171, Plaintiff, v. ORDER OF SAINT BENEDICT d/b/a SAINT JOHN'S ABBEY and FATHER RAYMOND FRANCISCO SCHULTE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Plaintiff alleges that Father Raymond Francisco Schulte sexually abused and molested him as a child, and brings this diversity suit for violations of Commonwealth law, particularly Puerto Rico's general tort statute, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5141 (2009) ("Article 1802"). (Docket No. 1.) Codefendants both move separately for dismissal; Father Raymond Francisco Schulte ("Father Francisco") moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 21), and the Order of Saint Benedict d/b/a Saint John's Abbey ("the Order") moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (Docket No. 23). Plaintiff opposes (Docket Nos. 22; 39), and Defendants respond. (Docket Nos. 41; 46.)
We derive the following allegations from the complaint and the documents properly incorporated within it. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff, an adult male resident of Puerto Rico, attended San Antonio Abad boarding school as a child, owned and operated by the Order, inHumacao, Puerto Rico. (Id. at 2.) Father Francisco became a monk in 1974, and was ordained as a priest within the Order in 1979. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that in 1978, when he was fourteen years old, Father Francisco engaged in "unpermitted, harmful and offensive sexual contact" with him at the boarding school. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Father Francisco abused at least three students at the school while serving as "priest, teacher and principal" at the boarding school until his transfer to a different school in Minnesota in 1981. The complaint goes on to allege an extensive laundry list of incidents when Father Francisco sexually abused and assaulted other boys across the Americas (Id. at 5-7), as well as detailed descriptions of colleagues and coworkers within the Order who either engaged in sexual abuse of boys or else had information about Father Francisco's inappropriate and predatory behavior, but did nothing to stop him. (Id. at 7-19.)
Plaintiff alleges that he "did not have knowledge of the injuries relating to the sexual abuse . . . until June 2010," after an investigator interviewed him in May 2010 regarding another potential victim of Father Francisco. (Id. at 4.) This investigation led to the execution of Plaintiff's affidavit of May 7, 2010, detailing the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Father Francisco; Plaintiff filed this affidavit as documentation in support of the habeas corpus petition of Reinaldo J. Rivera, another alleged victim of Father Francisco's predatory sexual abuse at the boarding school. (Docket No. 41-1.)
In this affidavit, Plaintiff describes how Father Francisco molested him and another pupil in his office and how Plaintiff's expulsion from the boarding school led to banishment from his childhood home and a life of poverty, homelessness, and crime. (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff explained that he eventually sought professional help for his addiction - (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff stated in the affidavit that he had since made an effort to take control of his life, "reading every book I could about addiction and sexual abuse" and was celebrating twelve years of sobriety. (Id. at 6.) He also stated that he found an alumni website and the sexual abuse at the school. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff additionally averred that if he had been asked to testify at Rivera's trial in 2004, he would have done so. (Id. at 7.) According to his complaint, executing the affidavit caused Plaintiff "to think about the sexual abuse" and how it injured him, and to realize that Father Francisco had abused other boys. (Docket No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff alleges he "has suffered and will continue to suffer" pain, emotional distress, and psychological injuries. (Id.) Plaintiff filed the present suit on May 2, 2011.
A defendant may move to dismiss an action, based solely on the complaint, for the plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In assessing such a motion, we "accept[] all well-pleaded facts as true, and we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the [plaintiff]." Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir. 1993).
"[A]n adequate complaint must provide fair notice to the defendants and state a facially plausible legal claim." Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).In considering a complaint's adequacy, we disregard "statements in the complaint that merely offer legal conclusions couched as fact or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We then take as true what remains, "[n]onconclusory factual allegations . . . even if seemingly incredible." Id. On the basis of those properly pled facts, we assess the "reasonableness of the inference of liability that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw." Id. at 13.
Father Francisco argues that this action is time-barred under the relevant Commonwealth statute of limitations.1 (Docket No. 21.) We agree. Despite the numerous appalling allegations, we dismiss all claims for the reasons stated below.
Puerto Rico's Civil Code requires tort claims under Article 1801 to be brought within one year of accrual. 31 L.P.R.A. § 5298(2) (2009). For a claim to accrue, Espada v. Lugo, 312 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under this "discovery rule," however, a plaintiff who remains unaware of the injury or author "due to his own negligence or carelessness, then the prescriptive period will begin to run from the date the alleged tort occurred" because courts presume that a plaintiff knows of the injuryat the time of the tort—and the plaintiff bears "the burden of proving that he learned of the act at a later date." Quintana Lopez v. Liggett Grp., 336 F. Supp. 2d 153, 157 (D.P.R. 2004) ).
Plaintiff argues that sexually abused children can "experience a delayed discovery of the connection between the sexual abuse and the harm suffered." (Docket No. 22 at 4.) He argues that his devout Catholic upbringing and Father Francisco's position of authority and power render it "understandable that Plaintiff would never suspect that [Father Francisco] would ever injure him." (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff argues that in June 2010 he learned that Father Francisco had abused other children and that the Order employed him despite knowledge of the abuse, and at that time realized his injury. (Id.) However, Plaintiff, in his complaint and the incorporated affidavit, never states that he was unaware of the conduct and of the identity of his abuser. On the contrary, the affidavit declares that: Prior to 2007, Plaintiff read several books on addiction and sexual abuse; "Father Francisco left [him] with many emotional and mental scars" and "nearly ruined" his life; and Plaintiff boarding school. (Docket No. 41-1 at 7.)
Unfortunately, under Commonwealth law, "due diligence does not mean waiting for answers to fall from the sky, but rather requires reasonable, active efforts to seek answers and clarify doubts." Quintana Lopez, 336 F. Supp. 2d 153 at 157 (citing Estate of Ayala v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 311, 317 (D.P.R. 2003)). Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts to explain his lack of knowledge despite his autodidactic exploration of literature on abuse and addiction, nor has he "alleged specific facts that may show that 'diligent efforts' were conducted before the statute of limitations elapsed." Id. at 158. "In the case of minors ordisabled persons, the statute of limitations is tolled while their minority of age or disability lasts." Cintron-Rivera v. Borders Grp., 555 F. Supp. 2d 273, 276 (D.P.R. 2006) (citing Cintron v. Puerto Rico, 127 P.R.D. 582, 589 (1990)). But Plaintiff reached the age of majority nearly thirty years ago, and the statements in his affidavit and complaint show that even if he did not realize the full extent of his injuries until June 2010, his knowledge of the events and of their consequences proved such that he did not satisfy the "diligence standard necessary to toll the statute of limitations."2 Quintana Lopez, 336 F. Supp. 2d at 157 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Based on the complaint and affidavit, at the very least, Plaintiff had the requisite knowledge by the time of his 2007 release from prison, and has not met his burden of showing that he lacked the requisite knowledge until May or June 2010. See Torres v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 219 F.3d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 2000) (). We commend Plaintiff for his quest for sobriety and escape from his childhood circumstances, and we hope that at the least, this suit will prompt the Order to investigate any similar...
To continue reading
Request your trial