Medina–medina v. Commonwealth of P.R.
Decision Date | 09 March 2011 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 09–1616 (FAB). |
Parties | Jaime MEDINA–MEDINA, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Commonwealth of PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Juan Ramon Rodriguez–Lopez, Rodriguez Lopez Law Office, Ponce, PR, for Plaintiffs.Conjugal Partnership Medina–Rivera, pro se.Christian E. Pagan–Cordoliani, Puerto Rico Department of Justice, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 16.) The motion argues: (1) that plaintiff's claim under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because of sovereign immunity and because it is time-barred; (2) that plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because of sovereign immunity and because the claim is time-barred; and (3) that plaintiffs' claims pursuant to articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, §§ 5141–5142, (“articles 1802 and 1803”) are also time-barred. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's motion to dismiss.
The Court draws the following facts from plaintiffs' complaint, (Docket No. 1), and takes them as true for the purpose of resolving defendant Commonwealth's motion, drawing all inferences in plaintiff's favor. Correa–Martinez v. Arrillaga–Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 51 (1st Cir.1990).
Jaime Medina–Medina (“Medina”) filed a complaint at the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 18, 2008, and the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on April 8, 2009. (Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 19–20.) On July 5, 2009, Medina, his wife Rosa Elisa Ramirez–Acosta (“Ramirez”) and their Conjugal Partnership filed a complaint against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“Commonwealth”), the Oficina de Administracion de Tribunales (“OAT”), and against John Doe, Richard Doe and their respective insurance companies. (Docket No. 1.)
Medina alleges that he was employed as a social worker by the OAT with duty at the Family Relations and Minors section of the Court of First Instance, Ponce Superior Division. He further alleges that he was assigned a family relations case, to which he objected because his job involved only the minors section at the time, and that as a result of such objection, his supervisor started a verbal argument and later threatened him with an adverse personnel action and criminal charges. Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.
The OAT then sent two letters informing Medina of the proposed adverse personnel action, which relieved him of duty and advised him of his right to a hearing. Plaintiff then timely requested the hearing, which was scheduled for August 16, 2007. One day before the hearing, however, the OAT notified Ramirez via telephone that the hearing was adjourned indefinitely. Plaintiff alleges that, as of the date of his complaint, no hearing has been set even though over two years had passed since he was “relieved of duty”. Id. at ¶¶ 14–16.
Medina claims that OAT's and Commonwealth's supervisors, administrators and directors violated section 1983 by depriving him of his due process constitutional rights. He also claims that defendants' actions have caused him damages and that their actions have worsened “his previously diagnosed mental medical condition”, in violation of the ADA. Id. at ¶¶ 16–18. Medina seeks monetary relief under section 1983 and the ADA. Id. at ¶¶ 21–22, 25. Furthermore, both plaintiffs, Medina and Ramirez, claim monetary relief under articles 1802 and 1803 for the emotional distress allegedly caused by defendants' negligence. Id. at ¶¶ 23–24.
On November 13, 2009, the Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss this suit against the OAT, pursuant to Rule 4(m). (Docket No. 19.) The Court granted the motion on April 9, 2010 and dismissed OAT from this suit for failure to serve process on it within 120 days from the filing of the complaint. (Docket No. 23.) The remaining defendants are the Commonwealth and the unnamed defendants.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege “a plausible entitlement to relief.” Rodriguez–Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc., 490 F.3d 92, 95 (1st Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must contain factual allegations that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level”, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, or in other words, plaintiffs must “nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
The Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor. See Correa–Martinez, 903 F.2d at 51. The Court need not credit, however, “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like” when evaluating the complaint's allegations. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996).
Plaintiffs are responsible for putting their best foot forward in an effort to present a legal theory that will support their claim. Santana–Castro v. Toledo–Davila, 579 F.3d 109, 117 n. 9 (1st Cir.2009) (citing McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Technology, 950 F.2d 13, 23 (1st Cir.1991)). Plaintiffs must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable theory.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir.1988).
The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prevents suits against a state in federal court without the state's consent. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XI; See, e.g., Caraballo–Melia v. Suarez–Dominguez, No. 08–2205, 2010 WL 830958, at *2 (D.P.R. March 4, 2010). This immunity applies to both the state itself as well as to agencies acting as an arm of the state. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993). The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is treated as a state for Eleventh Amendment purposes. Espinal–Dominguez v. P.R., 352 F.3d 490, 494 (1st Cir.2003).
There are, however, two general exceptions to the reach of the Eleventh Amendment: (1) “Congress may abrogate a State's immunity by expressly authorizing such a suit pursuant to a valid exercise of power”; and (2) “[A] State may waive its sovereign immunity by consenting to be sued in federal court.” Maysonet–Robles v. Cabrero, 323 F.3d 43, 49 (1st Cir.2003) (citing College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999)). Neither of the exceptions to immunity are present here.
First, even though plaintiffs do not specify under which title of the ADA they are bringing their claims,2 the Court assumes that plaintiffs claims are under ADA Title I because employment discrimination claims may only be brought under Title I.3 See, e.g., Mendez Vazquez v. Tribunal General de Justicia, 477 F.Supp.2d 406, 412 (D.P.R.2007) ( ). Because the Supreme Court has determined that Congress did not validly abrogate the state's sovereign immunity when private individuals sue for monetary damages under Title I of the ADA,4 Bd. of Tr. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001), and because Medina only seeks monetary relief under the ADA against the Commonwealth, id. at ¶ 25, he is barred from recovering under the ADA for that monetary relief. Torres–Alamo v. P.R., 502 F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir.2007).
Second, the Commonwealth has not waived its immunity or consented to be sued in federal court. The Commonwealth can waive its immunity: (1) by “consent [ing] to or participati[ng] in a federal program for which waiver of immunity is an express condition”; (2) by making a “clear declaration that it intends to submit itself to the jurisdiction of a federal court; or (3) by [conducting] affirmative conduct in litigation.” Diaz–Fonseca v. P.R., 451 F.3d 13, 33 (1st Cir.2006) (citing N.H. v. Ramsey, 366 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir.2004)). As explained below, none of these exceptions is met in this case.
A state can explicitly waive the protections of the Eleventh Amendment “by choosing to participate in a federal program for which waiver of immunity is a stated condition.” Arecibo Community Health Care Inc. v. P.R., 270 F.3d 17, 24 (1st Cir.2001). Mere participation by a state in a federal program does not, however, establish the state's consent to be sued in federal court, because it requires “express language or ... such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction ...” Id. at 25, citing Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Fla. Nursing Home Ass'n., 450 U.S. 147, 150, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981). Express waiver of immunity through participation in a federal program is not at issue here because, as discussed earlier, the Commonwealth is immune to claims of monetary relief under Title I of the ADA, and plaintiffs have not directed the Court “to any law to the contrary, nor [have] they argue[d] that the Commonwealth has waived its immunity by any other means”. See Diaz–Fonseca, 451 F.3d 13 at 34.
The Commonwealth has waived its immunity, but only as to suits brought in the Commonwealth's own forum, Rivera–Ortiz v. P.R., No. 09–2073, 2010 WL 1542188, at *3 (D.P.R. April 15, 2010), when brought in its Courts of First Instance and not for suits filed in federal court. Law 104, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, § 3077; Diaz–Fonseca...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Toledo-Colon v. Puerto Rico
...person who, under color of state law, deprives another person of any federal constitutional or statutory right.” Medina–Medina v. Puerto Rico, 769 F.Supp.2d 77, 82 (D.P.R.2011) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Section 1983, “neither a State nor ......
- Hernandez-Mendez v. Rivera
-
Sánchez–Arroyo v. Dep't of Educ. of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
...this Court has repeatedly held that such claims are within the exclusive province of Title I of the ADA. See Medina–Medina v. Puerto Rico, 769 F.Supp.2d 77, 80 (D.P.R.2011)(employment discrimination claims may only be brought under Title I); Rodríguez Velázquez v. Autoridad Metropolitana de......
-
Burgos v. Fontánez-Torres
...damages suits against a state in federal court without the state's consent. U.S. Const. Amend. XI; see, e.g., Medina–Medina v. Puerto Rico, 769 F.Supp.2d 77, 80 (D.P.R.2011). The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is treated as a state for Eleventh Amendment purposes. Espinal–Domínguez v. P.R., 35......