Torres-Landrau v. Rosello-Gonzalez

1

JOSE L. TORRES-LANDRAU, Plaintiff, v. PEDRO ROSELLÓ-GONZÁLEZ, RICARDO ROSELLÓ-NEVÁREZ, WANDA VÁZQUEZ-GARCED, BANCO POPULAR DE P.R., DEPARTAMENTO DE HACIENDA, ANA MATOS-DÍAZ, POLICÍA DE P.R., FRANCHINI VAJA, SISTEMA DE RETIRO ELA, MAGDA VELÁZQUEZ-VELLO, REGISTRO DEMOGRÁFICO, DIRECTORA DE REGISTRO DEMOGRÁFICO, Defendants.

JOSE L. TORRES-LANDRAU, Plaintiff, v. POLICÍA DE P.R., REGISTRO DEMOGRÁFICO, SISTEMA DE RETIRO ELA, ASOCIACIÓN MIEMBROS DE LA POLICÍA Y EGIDA, PROGRAMA DE VIVIENDA, DEPARTAMENTO DE LA FAMILIA, RAMA EJECUTIVA, CÁMARA DE REPRESENTANTES, DEPARTAMENTO DE INSTRUCCIÓN PÚBLICA, CASA NUESTRA GENTE, Defendants.

CIVIL Nos. 21-1151 (PAD), 22-1018 (PAD)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

March 18, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PEDRO A. DELGADO HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff pro se filed these two cases alleging, among other things, that different departments of the government of Puerto Rico discriminated against him by not paying overtime retaining pension contributions, and withholding the pandemic stimulus check (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 33; Civil No 22-2018, Docket No. 2). As explained below, the cases must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 6, 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion to appoint counsel (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket Nos. 1, 2 and 3). The court granted both motions (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket Nos. 5 and 7). On April 20, 2021, service of process was returned as executed upon all defendants, except for co-defendant Franchini Vaja. The same day, the court appointed attorney Israel Fernández-Rodríguez as plaintiff's counsel (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket Nos. 9, 18 and 19).

On April 27, 2021, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (“BPPR”) filed a “Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6)” (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 10). On April 27, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to respond by May 11, 2021 (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 11). Before the deadline had elapsed, the attorney moved to withdraw (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 12). On April 30, 2021, the court granted the motion, ordered appointment of a second attorney, stayed the case for thirty (30) days upon appointment of counsel, and held in abeyance the term to respond to the motion to dismiss (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 13).

On May 3, 2021, the court appointed attorney Marisol Ortiz-Sotomayor as plaintiff's counsel (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 14). Before the stay had concluded, the attorney moved to withdraw (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 21). The court granted the motion, ordered appointment of a third attorney, stayed the case for an additional thirty (30) days upon appointment of counsel, and warned that no further appointments of counsel would be considered (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 22).

On June 8, 2021, the court appointed attorney Monica L. Vega-Quintana as plaintiff's counsel (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 25). On July 1, 2021, before the stay had concluded, the attorney moved to withdraw (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 29). On July 7, 2021, the court granted the motion, lifted the stay, and ordered plaintiff to continue litigating the case pro se as well as defendants to answer or otherwise plead by July 28, 2021 (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 32).

On July 20, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 33). In light of this filing, the court extended the period to answer or otherwise plead until August 10, 2021 (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 34). On August 1, 2021, all parties moved to dismiss (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket Nos. 37, 38 and 39). On August 11, 2021, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to the motions to dismiss not later than August 25, 2021 (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 40).

On September 16, 2021, after the deadline to respond had elapsed, plaintiff filed a motion requesting a hearing for the defendants to present evidence as to why the complaint should be dismissed (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 41). On January 11, 2022, plaintiff pro se opened a second case, filing a new complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Civil No. 22-1018, Docket No. 1 and 2). On February 16, 2022, the court consolidated both cases (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 44; Civil No. 22-1018, Docket No. 3).

II. ALLEGATIONS

A. First Case

Plaintiff alleges that he was employed with the Puerto Rico Police Department from 1987 until 1997 (Civil No. 21-1151, Docket No. 33, ¶ 1), ^[1] and that the Department owes him money for overtime work from 1989 after Hurricane Hugo, when according to him, he worked 12-hour shifts for a whole year, and in 1992, during the “Iron Fist Against Crime” police operation. Id at ¶ 7. He asserts that the Puerto Rico Government Employees & Judiciary Retirement Systems Administration retained $8, 343.39 in pension contributions from the time he worked for the Police Department and has not disbursed it to him because he allegedly has an outstanding debt with the Association of Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (AEELA for its Spanish-language acronym). Id at ¶¶ 8-9. He avers that the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury, the Administration for Child Support Enforcement (ASUME, for its Spanish language acronym), and/or BPPR sent his pandemic stimulus checks to an ASUME account that he does not recognize. Id. at ¶ 10.^[2] He complains of discrimination due to his race, and for political and religious reasons (Docket No. 33-1, ¶ 13; Docket No. 41, ¶ 3).^[3]

Furthermore, plaintiff maintains he tried to obtain the money that he alleges is owed to him seeking the assistance of Alba Maldonado (Payroll Director of the Police Department), Magda Velázquez-Vello (Director of the Retirement Systems Administration), and Ana Matos-Díaz (Director of the Department of Treasury), to no avail (Docket No. 33, ¶ 14). He complains that BPPR prohibited him from opening an account because he did not have a driver's license or passport, a decision that he characterizes as discriminatory. Id. at ¶ 11.

With this background, plaintiff asks for payment of $500, 000 in compensatory damages, of the overtime corresponding to 1989 and 1992, of the $8, 343.39 in pension contributions, and the pandemic stimulus check. In addition, he requests that the ASUME account be closed. (Docket No. 33, ¶¶ 15-16).

B. Second Case

The complaint consists of two pages with allegations in the Spanish language (Civil No. 22-1018, Docket No. 2, pp. 2-3). Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 864, “[a]ll pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language.” The First Circuit requires strict enforcement of this requirement when the untranslated document “is key to the outcome of the proceedings in the district court.” Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party v. Dalmau, 544 F.3d 58, 67 (1st Cir. 2008). As the First Circuit has explained, allowing the outcome to turn on a non-English document would be at odds with the premise of a unified and integrated federal court system. Id. Therefore, the court “should not” consider such documents. González-De-Blasini v. Family Dep't, 377 F.3d 81, 89 (1st Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, for plaintiff's benefit, the court interprets the complaint as alleging that:

(1) The Police Department took away six years of plaintiff's service and did not pay him two years of service that he worked without any days off, including overtime worked during Hurricane Hugo (Civ. No. 22-1018, Docket No. 2, ¶¶ 2, 6);

(2) The Retirement Systems Administration did not give plaintiff his pension in 1997 (Civ. No. 22-1018, ¶ 4); (3) The Department of Family denied plaintiff food stamps and welfare benefits (Civ. Case 22-1018, Docket No. 2, ¶ 8);

(4) The Demographic Registry registered a minor under plaintiff's name in 1993 (Civ. No. 22-1018, ¶ 3);

(5) The Department of Education did not lower the academic index (Civ. No. 22-1018, Docket No. 2, ¶ 13);

(6) The House of Representatives was racist, discriminated against plaintiff and inadequately protected his rights (Civ. No. 22-1018, Docket No. 2, ¶¶ 9-12); and

(7) The Association for Members of the Puerto Rico Police was racist and discriminated against plaintiff (Civ. No. 22-01018, Docket No. 2, ¶ 5).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)((Civil No. 21-1151, Docket Nos. 10, 37, 38, and 39). A complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Still, to survive dismissal, the complaint “must state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads sufficient factual content “to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.

Factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not do. Id. Nor does it suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. at 557. Although the court must take all factual allegations in the complaint as true, “it is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Dismissal is appropriate when the facts alleged do not “possess enough heft to sho[w] that [plaintif...