Ortiz v. Jimenez-Sanchez

• Decision Date: 31 March 2015
• Docket Number: Civil No. 13–1475 SEC.
• Parties: Maritza ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nydia Z. JIMENEZ–SANCHEZ, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

98 F.Supp.3d 357

Maritza ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs

v.Nydia Z. JIMENEZ–SANCHEZ, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 13–1475 SEC.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed March 31, 2015.

Maritza Ortiz–Sanchez, Carolina, PR, pro se.

Maritza Ortiz–Sanchez, Carolina, PR, for Plaintiffs.

Frances Y. Rivera–Aviles, Janitza M. Garcia–Marrero, Department of Justice, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior District Judge.

Before the Court are the defendants' motions for summary judgment, Dockets 64 & 74, the plaintiffs' oppositions thereto, Dockets 75, 78, and the defendants' replies. Dockets 86 & 89. For the reasons laid out below, the defendants' motions are GRANTED.

Factual and Procedural Background

“Family issues, including abuse and custody,” Judge Boudin has sagaciously remarked, “are among the most difficult for the law to resolve.” Brown v. Ives, 129 F.3d 209, 213 (1st Cir.1997). This is because “[s]tandards tend to be vague, situations may be wrenching, and the legal tools at hand are often clumsy.” Id. In the “family-law realm,” however, “federal damage actions under section 1983 have usually proved to be an ineffective means of adjusting disputes with the authorities.” Id. Of course there might be exceptions; but this pro se civil rights damages suit brought by Maritza Ortiz, individually and on behalf of her daughters A.B.O. and P.H.O, is plainly not among them.

This sad tale began when Ortiz lost custody of A.B.O. after several local courts determined that she had a “mixed personality anxiety disorder,” a histrionic disorder, which is “characterized by overreacting in a somewhat dramatic way to minor events,” Dragon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 878 F.2d 1436 (6th Cir.1989), and that she fabricated sexual abuse allegations against Arnaldo Bello, A.B.O.'s father. Department of Family Services v. Ortiz Sánchez, KLAN201300209, 2013 WL 6211438 (P.R.Cir. Oct. 2, 2013) (certified translation at Docket # 147–1, pp. 5, 10). Ortiz now challenges these adverse custody decrees in federal court, complaining about A.B.O.'s alleged “kidnapping” and “incarceration” in connection with a custody litigation, which resulted in A.B.O.'s release into foster care outside Ortiz's custody. The remaining defendants—the claims against the others (who never appeared) were dismissed without prejudice, Docket # 180—are Nydia Z. Jiménez Sánchez (Judge Jiménez), the retired municipal judge who granted A.B.O.'s emergency custody to the Puerto Rico Family Department; Haydee Rivera Bermúdez (Rivera), one of the caseworkers assigned to the case; and Susanne Lugo Hernández (Lugo), the guardian or child representative assigned to protect A.B.O.'s interests.

The Court recounts below the background leading up to the alleged civil rights violations, reserving for later discussion a more detailed dissertation of the facts pertinent to the analysis. In doing so, and whenever the parties quarrel over what occurred, the Court “adhere[s] to the plaintiff's version in keeping with ... [its] role in reviewing” summary-judgment motions, Ahmed v. Johnson, 752 F.3d 490, 492 (1st Cir.2014), assuming, of course, that those facts are neither inadmissible nor unsupported by the record.

Ortiz, who happens to be an officer of this court, has two daughters: P.H.O and the younger A.B.O., born in 2007. A.B.O.'s parents, Ortiz and Bello, have been pinned against each other in several bitter disputes “arising from differences regarding maintenance, parent-child contact, education and care of the minor.”

2013 WL 6211438, Docket # 147–1 at 1.¹ Things escalated in 2012, when Bello requested A.B.O.'s custody, to which Ortiz responded with a petition for a protective order, alleging that Bello had “sexual[ly] abuse[d]” A.B.O. Id. at 4.

An emergency custody hearing was held on August 7, 2012, and Judge Jiménez was the judicial officer assigned to preside over it. Id. at 5. Ortiz testified at the hearing, and so did a clinical psychologist, who made clear that Ortiz had “a certain psycho-emotional ailment that would have a bearing on her capacity to correctly handle the incidents in which [A.B.O.] has been involved.” Ortiz Sánchez v. Bello–Acevedo, No. KLAN201201389, 2012 WL 4761853 (P.R.Cir. Aug. 31, 2012) (certified translation at Docket # 101–1, p. 16). The judge also heard testimony from Rivera, who had interviewed both A.B.O. and Ortiz, and Lugo, who testified that “as part of the protocol no paternal or maternal relations should be allowed until a professional would assess the minor.” Id. at 5

Judge Jiménez issued three orders. First, she authorized A.B.O.'s emergency removal under Puerto Rico Law 246 of 2012, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 8, §§ 1101–1206, known as the “Child Security, Welfare and Protection Act.” This resulted in A.B.O.'s removal from Ortiz and her being placed under the custody of the Puerto Rico Family Department “while the possible sexual abuse allegations were investigated.” 2012 WL 4761853, Docket # 101–1 at 5. Second, the judge forbade “the paternal and maternal relations, as well as any type of communication with the paternal and maternal family.” Id. at 5–6. And finally, she ordered “the Social Worker to perform an immediate assessment on the minor.” Id. at 6.

The next day Ortiz repaired to the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, maintaining in pertinent part that Judge Jiménez had showed a “marked bias against her.” Id. at 16. But the appellate court jettisoned that imputation, holding that the judge had not been “biased ... at all.” Id. Judge Jiménez, the court explained, “based [her] determination on the evidence shown before [her] and on specific recommendations of the officers of the State who had intervened in the case, called to protect the particular interest of [A.B.O.] before the serious allegations that were formulated....” Id. Ortiz then filed a certiorari in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, but it was denied, Docket # 101–2 (Oct. 19, 2012); and so was her reconsideration therefrom. Docket # 101–3 (Nov. 30, 2012).

In the interim, the case was referred to another judge for a so-called “custody ratification hearing,” as required by Law 246, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 8, § 1149. And several hearings were held in late 2012. The court ultimately ratified Judge Jiménez's emergency removal decision. It is worth reproducing below that court's eyebrow-raising conclusions:

The evidence ... clearly and unequivocally shows that [Ortiz] has a personality disorder that limits her in the appropriate protective role that she should have as a mother and that she urgently needs clinical therapy for her emotional health. Said behavior has negatively affected the emotional health of the minor. In fact, the baseless allegation as to sexual abuse made by [Ortiz] against the intervening father and other relatives of his ... deprived [him] of his paternal right to initiate an investigation before the District Attorney's office.

Additionally, [Ortiz] unnecessarily exposed her daughter to the severity of an evaluation protocol to validate the testimony as an alleged victim of sexual abuse and sought, falsely, that her daughter indicate that she has been abused by the father or relatives. This, in and of itself, is another abusive act by the mother against the minor. Furthermore, she damaged the parent-child relationship with a baseless accusation which not only deprived him of his right to be with his daughter, but also the stigma that said accusation implies and which remains even after this fact has been clarified. To attempt to win a custody litigation in this way is to try to exercise control over her daughter in an appropriate manner and in detriment to her wellbeing, damaging the personal integrity and liberty of others. It is unacceptable that said false allegations were made during judicial proceedings.

But said behavior of [Ortiz] is consistent with diagnoses and findings of experts that were submitted, and which require, as they recommended, that [Ortiz] receive clinical therapy to improve her emotional health which is indispensable for her to aspire to exercise the appropriate motherly role without any more damage to [A.B.O.] and maintaining an optimal relationship with her father and other relatives. After all, the familial environment should be healthy and harmonious for the wellbeing of the minor.

2013 WL 6211438, Docket # 147–1 at 2. The court then referred Ortiz to the Family Department “to receive services and to design the corresponding parent-child relations plan.” Id. at 10. Ortiz also appealed that decision. But the local appellate court again affirmed, holding that “the evidence presented” supported the above determinations. Id.²

Undeterred, in June 2013 Ortiz filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging—in a rambling, unintelligible, and scumbled fashion—that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, essentially by removing A.B.O. from her custody and placing her in a foster care. Docket # 2.³ The amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, asserts a compendium of constitutional violations (invoking the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, Docket # 6, p. 26), pendent local-law claims for damages, id. at 27, and even claims under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 –2680, although there are obviously no federal actors involved. The nub of the amended complaint is that Rivera, with Lugo's assistance, “abduct[ed] and incarcerat[ed]” A.B.O. following Judge Jiménez's “instructions.” Docket # 6, p. 2. The plaintiffs sue the defendants only in their personal capacities, id. at ¶ 11, seeking over $100 million in damages. Id. at 31.

The defendants moved to dismiss, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), maintaining that the amended complaint falls short of plausibly stating any constitutional violations, and that in any event they are entitled to immunity for their actions. See Dockets 64 & 74. The plaintiffs' oppositions to those motions, Dockets 75 & 78,...