Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. U.S., 5:00CV371OC10GRJ.

• Decision Date: 14 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. 5:00CV371OC10GRJ.,5:00CV371OC10GRJ.
• Citation: 231 F.Supp.2d 1187
• Parties: Luz M. GONZALEZ-JIMENEZ DE RUIZ, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children, Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez, Jose David Ruiz Gonzalez, Melanie Ruiz Gonzalez, and Araika Ruiz Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

Page 1187

231 F.Supp.2d 1187

Luz M. GONZALEZ-JIMENEZ DE RUIZ, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children, Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez, Jose David Ruiz Gonzalez, Melanie Ruiz Gonzalez, and Araika Ruiz Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

No. 5:00CV371OC10GRJ.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division.

November 14, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Maria H. Sandoval, Law Office of Maria H. Sandoval, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Reginald Luster, Ralph J. Lee, Ronnie S. Carter, U.S. Attorney's Office Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, Lisa E. Bhatia-Gautier, U.S. Attorney's Office District of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

ORDER

HODGES, District Judge.

The United States Magistrate Judge has issued a report (Doc. 47) recommending that the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32), be granted.

The Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54). Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert the following objections:

(1) that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as it recognizes a concubine's right to share in jointly-owned property;

(2) that the Plaintiffs have a right to sue for "loss of associational benefits" (Doc. 50);

(3) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Defendant's conduct was "less than outrageous" and thus insufficient to give rise to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and,

(4) that the Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded that the Plaintiffs' diabetes and/or emotionally triggered asthma do not constitute a "physical impact," which is necessary to give rise to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress pursuant to Florida law.

First, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that the law of Puerto Rico recognizes common law marriages insofar as the law of Puerto Rico recognizes a concubine relationship for purposes of property distribution, the Plaintiffs' objection is due to be overruled. As correctly cited in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the law of Puerto Rico does not recognize common law marriages.¹

Second, as to the Plaintiffs' assertion that they have a "right to sue for the loss of associational benefits," the objection is due to be overruled. The Plaintiffs have failed to cite any controlling authority to support their objection, and Florida law provides that upon the death of the spouse or parent, a cause of action for loss of consortium is abated.²

Third, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that the Defendant's conduct was "outrageous," the objection is due to be overruled. Whether conduct is deemed "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency," is determined by the Court as a matter of law.³

And fourth, as to the Plaintiffs' objection that diabetes and emotionally triggered asthma constitute a "physical impact" because "[m]odern day psychiatry recognizes that changes in body chemistry parallel changes in the mind," the objection is due to be overruled. Florida law is clear that "intangible, mental injuries are insufficient to meet the physical injury requirement."⁴

The Defendant has filed "limited objections" to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 53). Because the Defendant's objections do not affect the substance of the report and recommendation, the Defendant's objections are due to be overruled.

The Court does note, however, that Plaintiff "Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez" is also referred to in the record as "Luis Fernando Caballero Gonzalez." And, the Court also notes that although the report and recommendation states that hospital officials informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales that Mr. Ruiz's spine and neck were broken by prison personnel, the Complaint (Doc. 1) reflects that it was Mr. Ruiz who informed Plaintiff Luis Gonzales of his injuries, and that it was Mr. Ruiz's personal conclusion that prison personnel had acted crudely.

Upon due consideration of the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's objections, and upon an independent examination of the file, it is ordered that:

(1) the Plaintiffs' objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 50) (Doc. 54) are OVERRULED;

(2) the Defendant's objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 53) are OVERRULED;

(3) the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47) is adopted, confirmed, and made a part hereof;

(4) the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment" (Doc. 32) is GRANTED;

(5) the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs; and,

(6) the Clerk is further directed to terminate any pending motions, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION¹

JONES, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment (Doc. 32). For the following reasons, the Defendant's motion is due to be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND & FACTS

Plaintiffs' claims in this case are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2672 et seq., against the United States, arising from the "death of Jose Miguel Ruiz, an inmate entrusted to the care and custody of the Attorney General for the United States and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")."² The action is brought both on behalf of Luz M. Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz ("Ms.Gonzalez"), who is alleged to be the common law wife and the widow of the BOP inmate, Jose Miguel Ruiz (Mr. Ruiz"), and on behalf of the four minor children of Mr. Ruiz.³

A review of the Complaint, the affidavits filed by Plaintiffs,⁴ and the other matters of record,⁵ read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, discloses the following facts.

Mr. Ruiz was imprisoned at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico in April of 1997. Within one month of Mr. Ruiz's imprisonment in Puerto Rico, Mr. Ruiz was transferred to the custody of BOP officials in the state of Florida. Initially, Mr. Ruiz was transferred to a federal detention center in Tallahassee, Florida, and, shortly thereafter, he was transferred permanently to the Coleman Federal Correctional Institution ("Coleman FCI") in Coleman, Florida. Immediately following his arrival at Coleman FCI, Mr. Ruiz complained of severe back pain. Despite these complaints, Mr. Ruiz was denied medical care. Instead, prison officials viewed Mr. Ruiz's complaints as disruptive to the prison community and, accordingly, placed Mr. Ruiz in "segregation." The Plaintiffs allege that, during this time, Mr. Ruiz was prohibited from contacting his family.

Due to the family's concerns regarding Mr. Ruiz's health, Mr. Ruiz' son, Luis Fernando Ruiz Gonzalez ("Luis"), traveled to Coleman FCI to visit his father. Upon arriving at Coleman FCI, however, prison officials refused to permit Luis to visit Mr. Ruiz, Prison officials claimed that Mr. Ruiz did not wish to see Luis, but assured Luis that Mr. Ruiz's health was "fine." Despite the refusal of prison officials to permit Luis to see Mr. Ruiz, Luis remained in Florida in the hopes that he would eventually be granted permission to visit his father. While in Florida, Luis was advised, by a non-prison official, that Mr. Ruiz was at the Leesburg Hospital in Lake County, Florida, receiving treatment for cancer.

On June 4, 1997, Luis visited Mr. Ruiz at the Leesburg Hospital, where Luis was informed that Mr. Ruiz had terminal cancer. Moreover, hospital officials informed Luis that Mr. Ruiz's spine and neck bones were "broken...because [prison] personnel had crudely attempted to manipulate [Mr. Ruiz's] spine because they mistakenly believed he was suffering from a condition of `pinched nerves.'"

From April 1997 through June 4, 1997, Mr. Ruiz's family made several attempts to contact Coleman FCI officials, seeking information regarding Mr. Ruiz's medical condition and treatment thereof. According to Plaintiffs, these attempts were fruitless.

On June 5, 1997, Mr. Ruiz was transferred — without notification to his family — to the federal BOP medical facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that, while in custody at the Fort Worth, Texas facility, Mr. Ruiz received substandard medical treatment. Mr. Ruiz died nine days after his transfer from the Leesburg hospital to the Fort Worth, Texas facility. Plaintiffs contend that, during the nine days prior to Mr. Ruiz's death, officials from the BOP refused to permit Mr. Ruiz's children to visit their father. Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that BOP officials neglected to inform Mr. Ruiz's family of Mr. Ruiz's death.

After Mr. Ruiz's death, his remains were transported from Fort Worth, Texas to his home in Puerto Rico. There was, however, a nine-day delay in the transport of Mr. Ruiz's body to his family, which resulted in the partial decomposition of Mr. Ruiz's remains.

In Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment ("Motion to Dismiss" or "Motion for Summary Judgment") Defendant primarily challenges Plaintiffs' capacity to sue and standing under the Florida Wrongful Death Act. (Docs. 33 & 34.)

In Plaintiffs' Opposition To The Government's Motion to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment ("Response") (Doc 45), Plaintiffs advise the Court that they have abandoned their wrongful death claims because their expert, Dr. Michael Grossbard, reports that Mr. Ruiz's lung cancer could not have been diagnosed in the federal facility in Puerto Rico and, thus, there was no breach of the duty of care by the Defendant in Puerto Rico.⁶ Notably, Dr. Grossbard does not opine that any failure to diagnose or failure to treat Mr. Ruiz was the cause of his death, but only that Mr. Ruiz's survival may have been longer if he had been given certain treatment. Dr. Grossbard, therefore, concedes that Mr. Ruiz had incurable...