Labrador-Rodriguez v. Departamento de Correccion y Rehabilitacion et al, No. 3:2009cv01352 - Document 16 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 2 Complaint. The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff by mail. Show Cause Response due by 9/8/2009.Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 8/14/2009.(THD)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 5 ALFREDO LABRADOR-RODRIGUEZ (Pro Se), Plaintiff 6 v. 7 DEPARTAMENTO DE CORRECCION Y REHABILITACION, et al., 8 Civil No. 09-1352 (SEC) Defendant 9 10 OPINION & ORDER 11 Plaintiff Alfredo Labrador-Rodriguez ( Plaintiff ) has brought the above captioned 12 complaint pro se under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asks for monetary damages arising 13 from violations of his civil rights, and due process while in prison. However, it appears from the face 14 of the complaint that Plaintiff s claim is time barred. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show 15 cause within 20 days why the present claim should not be DISMISSED. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Factual and Procedural Background The facts of the present case originate in or on August 14, 2007, when Plaintiff was transferred from state prison Institution 1072 to Institution 500 in Guayama, and informed his supervising officer that he takes medicine for his mental condition. See Docket 2-16. While allegedly waiting for seven (7) in the admissions cell, he became unstable because he did not receive his medications, and made several attempts to bring down the door. Id. Although he was finally taken to the medical area, on the next day he received an Administrative Complaint (Code 122) no. 218-07-0190 related to disciplinary matters. Id. Because of said complaint, Plaintiff received five alleged sanctions: (1) he was prohibited from making purchases in the penitentiary s store, (2) he could not participate in active recreation, (3) 1 Civil No. 09-1352 (SEC) 2 he was not allowed visits, (4) he was barred from passive recreation, and (5) prison authorities 3 cancelled 100% of the bonus obtained he had obtained. Id. Page 2 4 These sanctions finished on September 28, 2007, but on October 8, 2007, he was reclassified 5 into Maximum Custody, and then transferred to the Segregation Section. Plaintiff claims that the 6 reclassification, and transfer constitute the sixth, and seventh sanction respectively. Id. Labrador also 7 contends that on October 21 and 22, 2007, he was sprayed with pepper gas. Id. The next day, 8 Plaintiff alleges that while he was sleeping in Admissions, the prison officers brought in another inmate, 9 Jorge Rivera Cruz, to beat him up. Id. Finally, on November 5, 2007, he was transferred to Ponce 10 Maxima, where he currently is incarcerated. 11 This Court also notes that over the past decade Plaintiff has filed various other claims of a 12 similar nature to the one at hand. See, e.g., Labrador-Rodriguez v. Laboy-Alvadrado, 01 cv. 1006 13 (D.P.R. March 13, 2001). 14 Standard of Review 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 16 In forma pauperis proceedings are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. One particularity of the statute 17 is that Subsection (e)(2) provides that the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 18 determines that ... (B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious [or]; (ii) fails to state a claim 19 upon which relief may be granted.... 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Hugues v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 20 1159-160 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) there is basis for dismissal if the 21 claim proffers an indisputably meritless legal theory that lacks a basis in the law. Neitzke v. Williams, 22 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). In such a circumstance the law allows for this Court to dismiss the complaint 23 sua sponte. See Meléndez Santana v. Ports Authority, 296 Fed. Appx. 98, 99 (1st Cir. 2008) (affirming 24 a district court s decision which granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff s Title 25 VII claims sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 26 1 Civil No. 09-1352 (SEC) 2 2002) (finding that [s]ua sponte dismissal should be used sparingly, but is appropriate if it is crystal 3 clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would futile ). Page 3 4 Applicable Law and Analysis 5 Timeliness of § 1983 claim 6 Plaintiff s cliams The statute of limitation for a § 1983 claim in Puerto Rico is one year. 7 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5298(2); see also Rodriguez-Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 354 F.3d 8 91, 97 (1st Cir. 2004); Carreras-Rosa v. Alvez-Cruz, 127 F.3d 172, 174 (1 st Cir. 1997). Thus, 9 his claim appears to be time-barred, as the events that Plaintiff relate happened between August 10 and November 2007, and his complaint was filed in this Court on March 30, 2009. 11 Nevertheless, this Court will not at present dismiss Plaintiff s claims as meritless, and will 12 instead grant him 20 days to show cause as to why his claims are not time barred. It should be 13 noted that Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would suggest any right to equitable tolling applies 14 to the present complaint, nor has he demonstrated that he has exhausted available administrative 15 remedies as is required for an action with respect to prison conditions pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1997e(a). 16 Conclusion 17 Accordingly, this Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE by September 18 8, 2009, why his claim should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is time-barred and that 19 Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 14th day of August, 2009. 22 23 24 25 26 S/ Salvador E. Casellas SALVADOR E. CASELLAS United States 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.