Ramos Bonilla v. Vivoni

• Decision Date: 23 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-2002(JP).,02-2002(JP).
• Citation: 259 F.Supp.2d 135
• Parties: Efrain RAMOS BONILLA, Plaintiff, v. Pierre E. VIVONI, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Page 135

259 F.Supp.2d 135

Efrain RAMOS BONILLA, Plaintiff, v. Pierre E. VIVONI, et al., Defendants

No. 02-2002(JP).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

April 23, 2003.

Francisco R. Gonzalez-Colon, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Felix M. Roman Carrasquillo, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

PIERAS, Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Before the Court is a "Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support Thereof filed by co-Defendants Pierre Vivoni and Carlos Haddock Roman, in their personal capacity, Josean Moreno, in his personal and official capacity, and Miguel Pereira, in his official capacity (docket No. 21); Plaintiffs' opposition thereto (docket No. 29), and Defendants' "Statement of Uncontested Material Facts" (docket No. 35).

Plaintiff in this case is Efrain Ramos Bonilla, a member of the New Progressive Party ("NPP"). Defendants are former Puerto Rico Police Superintendent Pierre Vivoni, former Puerto Rico Police Superintendent Miguel Pereira, Puerto Rico Police Colonel Carlos Haddock, and Puerto Rico Police Officer Josean Moreno. Plaintiff claims that while at a protest at the "Lomita de los Vientos"¹ in front of the Capitol, Police Chief Vivoni, Colonel Haddock and the police officers were "clearly favoring" the leftist groups present there. He alleges he was beaten and arrested by Officer Moreno for no reason, and later was charged with inciting a riot, a charge he alleges was fabricated, all because of his political affiliation with the NPP. He further alleges that the police officers at the scene were anti-American, and that they violated his First Amendment rights of free speech and free association, as well as his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Defendants moved for dismissal of the case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. However, Plaintiff filed documents with his Complaint, as well as a videotape of the news coverage afforded to the incident in question. The Court wished to consider them in its analysis of the motion, and therefore ordered the parties to convert their motions to motions for summary judgment in conformity with Local Rule 311.15 (docket No. 32). When the Court ordered the parties to convert their motions, it specifically gave them due dates to file them. Defendants complied with the Court's Order, and filed their statement of uncontested facts. Plaintiff, however, did not file a counter statement of contested material facts in accordance with the Local Rule, nor did he request an extension of time to file the same. The Court therefore considers Defendants' statement of uncontested material facts as unopposed.

II. STANDARD

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment may be entered against a party where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Goldman v. First National Bank of Boston, 985 F.2d 1113, 1116 (1st Cir. 1993).

Summary judgment is appropriate where, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if, based on the substantive law at issue, it might affect the outcome of the case. Id. at 248; Mack v. Great Atl. and Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989). A material issue is "genuine" if there is sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable trier of fact to resolve the issue in the non-moving party's favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2511; Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir.1989).

The moving party bears the initial burden of proof to show "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2556, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Thereafter, the burden shifts to the non-moving party, who may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but who must affirmatively show, through the filing of supporting affidavits or otherwise, that there is a genuine issue for trial. Goldman, 985 F.2d at 1116 (1st Cir.1993); First Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1610, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). In meeting its burden, the non-moving party must produce enough evidence to show that it is entitled to a trial, not that it will necessarily be successful at trial. Casas Office Machines, Inc. v. Mita Copy star America, Inc., et al, 42 F.3d 668, 686 (1st Cir.1994) (citing First Nat'l Bank of Arizona, 391 U.S. at 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1591-92, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). It is with this standard in mind that the Court analyzes the motion before it.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court lists the uncontested facts as agreed to by the parties at the Initial Scheduling Conference.

1. Efrain Ramos Bonilla is of legal age, 48 years old, American citizen, unmarried, retired, resident of Calle Castilla 1265, Caparra Terrace, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00920; Tel. (787)783-7546, and (787)593-669, Social Security No. 583-68-7389, driver's license number 992794.

2. Co-Defendant Pierre Vivoni was personally directing the police force at "La Lomita de los Vientos" on June 28, 2001, the day the incident in question took place.

3. During that morning, Plaintiff Efrain Ramos Bonilla went to La Lomita de los Vientos, where several pro-American university students were raising American Flags in front of the Puerto Rico Legislature.

4. Pierre Vivoni arrived around 12:00 noon, and Colonel Carlos Haddock was also there, trying to prevent any outburst of violence.

5. Co-Defendant Miguel Pereira was not Superintendent of the Puerto Rico Police Department at the time the events that gave rise to this cause of action occurred.

6. At La Lomita de los Vientos, several anti-U.S. Navy and anti-American groups had a permanent protest against everything that is American in Puerto Rico.

7. Plaintiff Ramos Bonilla went to La Lomita de los Vientos, and with about 20 or so other pro-Americans, walked to the top of the hill to protect the flag that had been raised by Omar Negron.

8. About 10:30 in the morning, Colonel Haddock approached Plaintiff and angrily told him "You have to come down now because both groups agreed to leave".

9. Around 3:00 p.m., there were about 500 pro-Americans.

10. Colonel Carlos Haddock then escorted a group of persons that were not supporting the pro-Americans to the chapel.

11. At that moment, Plaintiff Ramos Bonilla was hit in the back.

12. The police officers threw him on the ground and handcuffed him.

13. When Plaintiff was taken to the police cruiser, he asked why he was being arrested.

14. At the Police Headquarters at Puerta de Tierra, Plaintiff Ramos Bonilla was incarcerated.

15. Plaintiff Ramos Bonilla was never told why he was arrested.

16. After a thirty minute detention at the police station Plaintiff was released, and he returned to La Lomita de los Vientos on the very day of the incident in question.

17. On Friday, August 4, 2001, Plaintiff Bonilla appeared before the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico court.

The following uncontested facts were derived from Defendants' statement of uncontested material facts in light of this Court's Order (docket No. 35).

1. At the time of the alleged facts averred in the Complaint, Defendant Miguel Pereira was not the Superintendent of the Puerto Rico Police Department.

2. Miguel Pereira commenced his duties well after the incidents alleged in the Complaint, and succeeded co-Defendant Vivoni as Superintendent of the Puerto Rico Police Department on December 1, 2001.

3. On January 2, 2001, co-Defendant Pierre Vivoni del Valle commenced his duties as Superintendent of the Puerto Rico Police Department.

4. Co-Defendants Vivoni and Miguel Pereira were not personally or directly involved in causing the alleged violations of Plaintiffs rights.

5. Co-Defendants Vivoni and Haddock helped maintain order during the manifestation.

6. Plaintiffs actions resulted in his temporary removal from the area.

7. Before the incident, Plaintiff had been diagnosed and/or suffered from a chronic emotional condition for which he was receiving full disability compensation from the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

8. Plaintiff was also diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder.

9. The video presented by Plaintiff shows that the police present at La Lomita de los Vientos controlled the crowd.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the issue of having disposed of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment without an opposition to Defendants' statement of uncontested facts. In the case of D. Smith v. Alumax Extrusions, Inc., 868 F.2d 1469 (5th Cir.1989), appellants advanced the argument that vacating the grant of summary judgment under Rule 59(e) was appropriate because the court had entered summary judgment without an opposition to the actual motion itself, and thus without all the proper and necessary evidentiary materials. Appellants alleged this led the court to make erroneous factual findings and legal conclusions. Although this argument has not explicitly been raised, the Court nevertheless addresses this issue because of its relevance to the present scenario.

In the case at bar, Defendants' motion to dismiss was actually opposed by Plaintiff. However, the Court converted Defendants' motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Under Local Rule 311.15, when the moving party files a statement of uncontested material facts, the non-moving party is obligated to file a counterstatement of contested facts which he believes raises issues of...