Maya-Gambino v. Melendez-Rivera et al, No. 3:2009cv01117 - Document 34 (D.P.R. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 16 MOTION to dismiss as to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Junta de Libertad Bajo Palabra filed by Junta de Libertad Bajo Palabra, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE the complaint as to the Commonwealth o f Puerto Rico and the Junta de Libertad Bajo Palabra (Parole Board). Plaintiff's claims against Maria Melendez-Rivera, Edwin Zayas-Figueroa, Lyzzette Tanon-Melendez, and Alba T. Reyes-Bermudez remain. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 3/25/2010.(mrj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO JOSEPH MAYA-GAMBINO, Plaintiff, Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) v. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, JUNTA DE LIBERTAD BAJO PALABRA ( PAROLE BOARD ); MARIA MELENDEZ-RIVERA; EDWIN ZAYASFIGUEROA; LYZZETTE TAà ONMELENDEZ; and ALBA T. REYESBERMUDEZ, Defendants. 21 OPINION AND ORDER 22 Plaintiff, Joseph Maya-Gambino, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 23 Defendants, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ( Puerto Rico ); the Junta de Libertad Bajo 24 Palabra ( Parole Board ); MarÃa Meléndez-Rivera; Edwin Zayas-Figueroa; Lyzzette Tañon- 25 Meléndez; and Alba T. Reyes-Bermúdez, alleging a violation of the Due Process Clause. 26 (Docket No. 25.) Puerto Rico and the Parole Board ( Movants ) move to dismiss the case 27 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the grounds of sovereign immunity, 28 mootness, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Docket No. 16.) Plaintiff replies. 29 (Docket No. 26.) 30 Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -2- 1 I. 2 Factual and Procedural Summary 3 4 We derive the following summary, unless otherwise noted, from Plaintiff s complaint. (Docket No. 25.) 5 Plaintiff is currently serving a fifty-four-year sentence in Puerto Rico s prison system for 6 violation of the Domestic Abuse Prevention and Intervention Act, 8 L.P.R.A. §§ 601 664 7 (2006). On September 15, 2008, Plaintiff sent a letter to Meléndez-Rivera, acting chair of the 8 Parole Board, informing her that, as of August 2008, he had served the minimum of his sentence 9 necessary to be considered for parole under 4 L.P.R.A. § 1503 (2002). In this letter, Plaintiff 10 asserted that he was entitled by law to a parole hearing. Plaintiff sent two more letters to 11 Meléndez-Rivera over the next two months without response. Plaintiff then filed a Request 12 for Initial Hearing with the Parole Board. Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a parole 13 hearing within forty-five days of his completing the minimum sentence. 14 Having received no response to his requests, Plaintiff filed his § 1983 claim with this 15 court on February 5, 2009, alleging that the Parole Board s failure to hold his hearing was a 16 violation of his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. (Docket No. 25.) Plaintiff seeks 17 an award of $50,000 in damages and an injunction ordering his immediate release. (Id.) Puerto 18 Rico and the Parole Board move to dismiss, arguing (1) the Eleventh Amendment grants them 19 immunity from suit; (2) the grant of a hearing has mooted Plaintiff s case; and (3) Plaintiff has 20 failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -3- 1 ( PLRA ), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Docket No. 16.) The Parole Board held a hearing for 2 Plaintiff on March 4, 2009. (Docket No. 26.) 3 II. 4 Rule 12(b)(1) Dismissal 5 Movants err in bringing the sovereign immunity and mootness portions of their motion 6 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The defense of sovereign immunity is a claim 7 that a court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case a claim that must be brought 8 under Rule 12(b)(1). See ValentÃn v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 362-63 (1st Cir. 2001) 9 (citing Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995)). 10 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a movant may bring either a factual 11 challenge or a sufficiency challenge to a court s subject-matter jurisdiction. ValentÃn, 254 12 F.3d at 362-63. A movant may raise a factual challenge by contradicting the jurisdictional 13 facts that a plaintiff alleges. Id. Under a sufficiency challenge, the court takes the plaintiff's 14 jurisdictionally-significant facts as true, draws all reasonable inferences from them in [the 15 plaintiff s] favor, and then assess[es] whether the plaintiff has propounded an adequate basis 16 for subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. 17 Because Plaintiff is pro se, we construe the complaint more favorably than we would 18 pleadings drafted by an attorney. Ayala Serrano v. Lebrón González, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 19 1990). 20 Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -4- 1 III. 2 Analysis 3 Movants assert that they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. (Docket 4 No. 16.) Plaintiff argues that Movants cannot avail themselves of sovereign immunity because 5 Puerto Rico has waived immunity through the adoption of 32 L.P.R.A. §§ 3077 3092a (2004). 6 (Docket No. 26.) As this is a sufficiency challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, we take all 7 Plaintiff s facts as true and make all reasonable inferences in his favor. See ValentÃn, 254 F.3d 8 at 363. 9 A. Puerto Rico s Waiver of Sovereign Immunity 10 The text of the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from federal lawsuits by citizens 11 of foreign states. U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court has held that principles of 12 sovereign dignity, inherent in the Constitution itself, extend states immunity beyond the textual 13 boundaries of the Eleventh Amendment to include immunity from suits by a state s own 14 citizens. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 727-29 (1999). It has long been settled that Puerto 15 Rico is considered a state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment analysis. DÃaz-Fonseca v. 16 Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 33 (1st Cir. 2006). 17 A state can waive its immunity in three ways: (1) clearly submitting itself to a federal 18 court s jurisdiction; (2) consenting to or participating in a federal program that expressly 19 conditions such consent or participation on a waiver of immunity; and (3) engaging in 20 affirmative conduct in litigation. Id. at 45. The limited waiver of immunity in 32 L.P.R.A. Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -5- 1 § 3077, which Plaintiff relies upon, is not a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in this 2 court. Id. at 34 ( Law 104, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 32, § 3077, which abrogates the 3 Commonwealth s immunity with respect to negligence suits filed against the Commonwealth 4 in Puerto Rico s Court of the First Instance, does not extend that waiver to suits filed in federal 5 court. ). Puerto Rico is, therefore, immune from suit and Plaintiff s claims against it cannot 6 stand. 7 B. Parole Board as Arm of the State 8 Eleventh-Amendment immunity applies not only to states but also to entities that are 9 arms of a state. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 991 F.2d 935, 939 10 (1st Cir. 1993). The First Circuit has set forth a two-step test to determine whether an entity 11 claiming to be an arm of the state qualifies for sovereign immunity. See Pastrana-Torres v. 12 Corporación de P.R. para la Difusión Pública, 460 F.3d 124, 126 (1st Cir. 2006). The first step 13 asks whether the state has structured the entity to share in its Eleventh-Amendment immunity. 14 Id. This step entails a fact-specific balancing test that examines, among other factors, the 15 degree of statutory control asserted by the state over the entity; the characterization of the entity 16 by its enabling legislation; whether the entity performs state functions, as opposed to local or 17 non-governmental functions; and whether the state bears legal liability for the entity s debts. 18 Fresenius Med. Care Cardiovascular Res., Inc. v. P.R. & Caribbean Cardiovascular Ctr. Corp., 19 322 F.3d 56, 68-72 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 20 44-46 (1994)). If these indicia conclusively demonstrate that the state has structured the entity Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -6- 1 to share in its immunity, then the Eleventh Amendment applies. Id. If the indicia are 2 inconclusive, the second step considers whether damages will be paid from the state s treasury 3 if the entity is found liable; if so, the entity is entitled to immunity. Id. The burden of proving 4 Eleventh-Amendment immunity rests with the entity asserting that it is an arm of the state. See 5 Pastrana-Torres, 460 F.3d at 126 (citing Wojick v. Mass. State Lottery Comm n, 300 F.3d 92, 6 99 (1st Cir. 2002)). 7 Movants state the general proposition that alter egos of the state are accorded Eleventh 8 Amendment immunity, and proceed to cite a string of cases granting sovereign immunity to 9 various entities other than the Puerto Rico Parole Board. (Docket No. 16 at 5.) They conclude 10 that the Parole Board, as an instrumentality of the state[,] is also shielded against money 11 damages claims by the 11 th Amendment immunity. (Docket No. 16 at 5.) Standing alone, this 12 would not satisfy the Parole Board s burden to prove its immunity.1 Federal courts, however, 13 have a duty to take judicial notice of state statutes without plea or proof. Getty Petroleum 14 Mktg., Inc. v. Capital Terminal Co., 391 F.3d 312, 320 (1st Cir. 2004). Therefore, we proceed 15 to a Pastrana-Torres analysis of the pertinent Puerto Rico statutes, asking whether Puerto Rico 16 structured the Parole Board so as to share in its sovereign immunity. 17 The Parole Board comprises six members appointed by the governor of Puerto Rico with 18 the advice and consent of the Puerto Rico Senate. 4 L.P.R.A. § 1501. Parole Board members 1 In the future, counsel should be aware that the phrase arm of the state, alone, is not the open sesame to the cave of sovereign immunity. See Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, in 10 The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night 209 (Sir R.F. Burton, trans. & Leonard C. Smithers, ed., 1894). Magic words are not a substitute for genuine legal analysis. Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -7- 1 serve for set terms, but the governor may remove them from service at any time. § 1502. The 2 Parole Board is required to issue an annual report to the governor and legislature. § 1503(h); 3 see also Pastrana-Torres, 460 F.3d at 127 (noting that mandatory report to governor is an 4 indicator of state control over public broadcasting corporation). While the Parole Board is 5 empowered to issue administrative rules, all such rules must be approved by the governor. 6 § 1503(g). The language of § 1501 specifies that the Parole Board is attached to the 7 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 8 (consolidating several formerly autonomous bodies, including the Parole Board, under a 9 single department of the executive branch, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation). 10 The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has previously been held to be an arm of 11 Puerto Rico. See Jusino-Mercado v. Puerto Rico, 101 F. Supp. 2d 57, 59 (D.P.R. 1999) (citing 12 Wilson v. Brown, 889 F.3d 1195, 1197 (1st Cir. 1989) ( [A] penal system is an essential 13 appendage of the state corpus . . . . )), aff d 214 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2000). The work of the Parole 14 Board, approving the conditioned release of prisoners from Puerto Rico s prisons, is a state 15 function in which neither municipal governments nor non-governmental organizations have an 16 interest. See also 3 L.P.R.A. App. VI (2006) 17 In the final inquiry of the balancing test, we determine who bears liability for the Parole 18 Board s debts. The Parole Board s enabling statute does not explicitly state whether Puerto 19 Rico will be legally responsible to pay the Parole Board s debts. We may infer such a 20 responsibility where Puerto Rico bind[s] itself to provide virtually all of the funds that [an Civil No. 09-1117 (JAF) -8- 1 entity] needs to operate. Pastrana-Torres, 460 F.3d at 128. While the Parole Board may 2 receive donations for rehabilitation programs, see 4 L.P.R.A. § 1503(i), all other functions are 3 presumably funded by Puerto Rico. See, e.g., H.R.J. Res. 48, 16th Legis. Assemb., 1st Reg. 4 Sess. (P.R. 2009) (appropriating $1,433,000 to the Parole Board for fiscal year 2009-2010). 5 The balance of the above factors tips, overwhelmingly, in favor of the Parole Board 6 being an arm of the state structured to share in Puerto Rico s sovereign immunity. 7 Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff s claims against the Parole Board. We need 8 not address Movants arguments for mootness or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 9 IV. 10 Conclusion 11 We hereby GRANT Movants joint motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16). We DISMISS 12 WITH PREJUDICE the complaint as to Puerto Rico and the Parole Board. Plaintiff s claims 13 against Meléndez-Rivera, Zayas-Figueroa, Tañon-Meléndez, and Reyes-Bermúdez remain. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25 th day of March, 2010. 16 17 18 19 20 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
