Rodriguez-Feliciano et al v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al, No. 3:2012cv01404 - Document 41 (D.P.R. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Dismiss. Amended Complaint due by 8/27/2013. Signed by Judge Jay A Garcia-Gregory on 8/13/2013. (IL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO VICTOR M. RODRIGUEZ-FELICIANO, et CIVIL NO. 12-1404 (JAG) al., Plaintiffs v. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants OPINION AND ORDER GARCIA-GREGORY, D.J. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss, advanced by codefendants the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ( Commonwealth ), the Puerto Rico Department of Police Department Corrections and ( PRPD ), the Rehabilitation Puerto ( PRDOC ), Rico the Puerto Rico Department of Justice ( PRDOJ ), the current PRPD Superintendent Hector Superintendent Jose former PRDOC Pesquera ( Pesquera ), Figueroa-Sancha Secretary Jesus the former ( Figueroa-Sancha ), Gonzalez-Cruz PRPD the ( Gonzalez-Cruz ), Victor Rivera-Percy ( Rivera-Percy ), and Norma Martinez-Toucet ( Martinez-Toucet ). Rodriguez-Feliciano (Docket and Luis No. A. 24). Plaintiffs Journet-Martir Victor M. ( Plaintiffs ) timely filed a response to defendants motion to dismiss. For Civil No. 12-1404 2 the reasons set forth, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss. ANALYSIS Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) provides in part: If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. (Emphasis added). The Rule explicitly provides a 120-day limit after the complaint is filed for the plaintiff to serve process upon the defendants. A plaintiff s failure to satisfy this procedural requirement without a showing of good cause warrants the action s dismissal against those particular defendants who were not served with the complaint. Feliz v. McNeill, 493 F. App x. 128, 131-32 (1st Cir. 2012); see also Soto-Torres v. Mueller, --F. Supp. 2d --, 2012 WL 3611826 (D.P.R. Aug. 20, 2012) (dismissing the claim in light of the undue delay, prejudice, and futility of an amendment to identify John Doe defendants). Since the claim s filing on May 29, 2012, Plaintiffs have not amended the complaint to identify the unnamed defendants nor requested additional time to serve process upon them. Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for their failure to abide by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Finally, their response to Civil No. 12-1404 3 Defendants motion service summons of to dismiss within did the not address 120 day the period of argued as lack by Defendants. Pursuant to Local Rule 7 of the District of Puerto Rico, plaintiffs have waived their objection to this particular issue. Since a federal court can only exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant once the procedural requirement of service of dismissed summons against is all satisfied, the unidentified instant claim must be for lack of defendants service of summons. Williams v. Jones, 11 F.3d 247, 255 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Omni Capital Int l, Ltd. V. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 103 (1987)). With respect to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the amendment protects states and their instrumentalities from being sued for money damages, subject to various exceptions. Metcalf & Eddy v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, 991 F.2d 935, 938 (1st Cir. 1993). This protection extends to state officials sued in their official capacity. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Consequently, the Eleventh Amendment requires that the section 1983 claim be dismissed against those individual defendants in their official capacity as members of the PRPD and the PRDOC. Concerning the Plaintiffs must injunctive relief Commonwealth, amend the against PRPD, complaint these PRDOC, to defendants seek in and PRDOJ, prospective lieu of money Civil No. 12-1404 4 damages, if they wish to continue their action against these Defendants. See Rosie D. ex rel. John D. v. Swift, 310 F.3d 230 (1st Cir. 2002). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART aforementioned the motion co-defendants. to dismiss Plaintiffs put forth section by 1983 the claim against the eighty-two unnamed and unidentified individuals are dismissed without prejudice. The claims against co-defendants Figueroa-Sancha, Pesquera, Gonzalez-Cruz, Rivera-Percy, and Martinez-Toucet, in their official capacity are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs will have 14 days upon the entering of this opinion to amend the complaint to seek prospective injunctive relief against the Commonwealth, PRPD, PRDOC, and PRDOJ, if they wish to keep them as parties to the instant action. All other claims, including the 1983 claim against the named, individual defendants in their personal capacity, remain. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th day of August, 2013. S/Jay A. Garcia-Gregory JAY A. GARCIA-GREGORY 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.
