Garcia-Delgado v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico et al, No. 3:2009cv01171 - Document 13 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 11 MOTION to dismiss filed by Administracion de Correccion, Maria E. Melendez-Rivera, Junta de Libertad Bajo Palabra, Miguel A. Pereira-Castillo, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. We DISMISS Plainti ff's claims against the Commonwealth, Parole Board, and Administration of Corrections. We ORDER Plaintiff and Defendants to SHOW CAUSE, on or before August 10, 2009, as to why this case is not moot. Show Cause Response due by 8/10/2009.Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 7/17/09.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO LUIS A. GARCà A-DELGADO, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 Civil No. 09-1171 (JAF) v. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., 9 10 11 Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER 12 13 Plaintiff, Luis A. García-Delgado, brings this case against 14 Defendants, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ( Commonwealth ), the 15 Junta 16 Chairwoman María E. Meléndez-Rivera, the Puerto Rico Administration 17 of Corrections ( AOC ), and Secretary of Corrections Miguel A. 18 Pereira-Castillo, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional 19 delay 20 Plaintiff seeks a resolution of his petition for parole. (Id.) 21 Defendants move to dismiss per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 12(b)(6). (Docket No. 11.) The motion is unopposed. de in Libertad Bajo Plaintiff s Palabra parole ( Parole proceedings. Board ), (Docket 23 Nos. 2, Board 12.) I. 24 Parole Factual and Procedural Synopsis 25 We draw the following facts from Plaintiff s complaint. (Docket 26 Nos. 2, 12.) As we must, we assume Plaintiff s factual allegations to Civil No. 09-1171 (JAF) -2- 1 be true and make all reasonable inferences in his favor. Gagliardi v. 2 Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301, 305 (1st Cir. 2008). 3 Plaintiff is an inmate in the penal custody of the Commonwealth 4 confined at the Southern Regional Institution in Ponce. On August 14, 5 2008, Plaintiff appeared before the Parole Board for consideration of 6 his early release. As of the date he filed this action, he had not 7 received word from the Parole Board. Plaintiff has not filed an 8 official complaint through the existing grievance procedures at 9 prison. 10 On February 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant case in 11 federal court, claiming violation of his right to a prompt answer 12 from the Parole Board. (Id.) Defendants moved to dismiss on May 7, 13 2009. (Docket No. 11.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 14 II. 15 Standard under Rule 12(b)(6) 16 A defendant may move to dismiss an action against him, based 17 solely on the complaint, for the plaintiff s failure to state a 18 claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 19 In assessing this motion, we accept[] all well-pleaded facts as 20 true, 21 [plaintiff]. Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 22 971 and (1st we Cir. draw all 1993). reasonable However, mere inferences legal in favor conclusions of are the not Civil No. 09-1171 (JAF) -3- 1 entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 2 ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). 3 The complaint must demonstrate a plausible entitlement to 4 relief by alleging facts that directly or inferentially support each 5 material element of some legal claim. Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 6 301, 305 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 7 U.S. 8 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . 9 claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. 544, 559 (2007)). Specific facts are not necessary; the Erickson v. Pardus, 10 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559) (internal 11 quotation marks omitted). 12 III. 13 Analysis 14 Because Plaintiff is pro se, we construe his pleadings more 15 favorably 16 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, Plaintiff s pro 17 se status does not insulate him from the strictures of procedural and 18 substantive law. See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 19 1997). 20 than we would pleadings drafted by an attorney. See Defendants argue that dismissal is proper because of sovereign 21 immunity and Plaintiff s failure to exhaust his administrative 22 remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ( PLRA ), 42 23 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Docket No. 11.) We treat each argument in turn. Civil No. 09-1171 (JAF) 1 A. -4- Eleventh Amendment 2 Under the Eleventh Amendment, an unconsenting State is immune 3 from federal-court suits brought by its own citizens as well as by 4 citizens of another State. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 5 (1974). The applicability of sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional 6 question. 7 For Eleventh Amendment purposes, the Commonwealth is treated as if 8 it were a state; consequently, the Eleventh Amendment bars any suit 9 brought against it. Gotay-Sánchez v. Pereira, 343 F. Supp. 2d 65, 10 71-72 (D.P.R. 2004) (citing Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. v. P.R. Aqueduct & 11 Sewer Auth., 991 F.2d 935 (1st Cir. 1993)). Eleventh Amendment 12 immunity extends to state agencies that function as arms of the 13 Commonwealth. Rivera v. Medina, 963 F. Supp. 78, 82 (D.P.R. 1997), 14 vacated on other grounds sub nom. Barreto-Rivera v. Medina-Vargas, 15 168 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 1999). Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). 16 However, federal courts may grant prospective injunctive relief 17 to prevent a continuing violation of federal law. Ex Parte Young, 209 18 U.S. 123 (1908). 19 suing responsible persons acting in their official state capacities. 20 Id. at 154. 21 A plaintiff may avoid the Eleventh Amendment bar by As the Commonwealth has not consented to litigation in this 22 case, we have no power to hear Plaintiff s case against it. See 23 Gotay-Sánchez, 343 F. Supp. 2d at 71-72. As the Parole Board and AOC Civil No. 09-1171 (JAF) -5- 1 are administrative organs of the Commonwealth, we dismiss Plaintiff s 2 claims against them. See Rivera v. Medina, 963 F. Supp. at 82. 3 However, Plaintiff may sue Meléndez-Rivera and Pereira-Castillo in 4 their official capacities as Chairwoman of the Parole Board and 5 Secretary of Corrections, respectively, for a timely answer from the 6 Parole Board. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 154. 7 B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 8 Defendants contend that we must dismiss this case because 9 Plaintiff affirmatively stated in his complaint that he did not 10 exhaust his administrative remedies by seeking relief through prison 11 grievance procedures. (Docket No. 11.) 12 Under the PLRA, [n]o action shall be brought with respect to 13 prison conditions under . . . Federal law, by a prisoner confined in 14 any 15 administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. 16 § 1997e(a). Although mandatory, exhaustion is an affirmative defense 17 for the defendant to raise and prove, not a jurisdictional bar. 18 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215-16 (2007). jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 19 In the instant case, Plaintiff demands a response from the 20 Parole Board. (Docket Nos. 2, 12.) The exhaustion requirement under 21 the PLRA expressly pertains to suits against prison conditions, 42 22 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), not to challenges to state parole procedures. See 23 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 84 (2005) (citing cases relating to Civil No. 09-1171 (JAF) 1 prison 2 administrative procedures under § 1983, distinct from suits regarding 3 state parole procedures). Accordingly, Defendants may not rely on 4 this affirmative defense. 5 C. 6 conditions as -6a separate category of suits challenging Order to Show Cause Although we retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff s suit for 7 injunctive relief against Meléndez-Rivera and Pereira-Castillo in 8 their official roles, we note that almost a year has elapsed since 9 the cause of action arose. (See Docket Nos. 2, 12.) Therefore, we 10 order the parties to submit evidence as to whether the Parole Board 11 has, in fact, communicated its final decision to Plaintiff, thereby 12 rendering this case moot. 13 IV. 14 Conclusion 15 Accordingly, we hereby GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART 16 Defendants motion to dismiss (Docket No. 11). We DISMISS Plaintiff s 17 claims against the Commonwealth, Parole Board, and Administration of 18 Corrections (Docket No. 2). We ORDER Plaintiff and Defendants to SHOW 19 CAUSE, on or before August 10, 2009, as to why this case is not moot. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 17th day of July, 2009. 22 23 24 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.