Castillo-Gonzalez v. Administracion de Correccion Del Estado Libre Asociado de P.R. et al, No. 3:2012cv01731 - Document 39 (D.P.R. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 16 MOTION to dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support as to Correctional Health Service Corp. filed by Correctional Health Service Corp., 18 MOTION to dismiss as to Aurelio Caban, Administracion de Correccio n Del Estado Libre Asociado de P.R. filed by Administracion de Correccion Del Estado Libre Asociado de P.R., Aurelio Caban. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 5/31/2013.(mrj)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 MOISES CASTILLO-GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, Civil No. 12-1731 (JAF) v. ADMINISTRACION DE CORRECCION, ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO; CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants. 5 6 7 8 OPINION AND ORDER We must decide whether an inmate s 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint presents claims that this court can exercise jurisdiction over. I. 9 10 11 12 13 MoisÃ©s Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez, an inmate in a Puerto Rican correctional institution, 14 filed a pro-se complaint seeking compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 15 the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez claims that 16 he was brutally beaten by inmate members of the Ã eta gang inside of the Sabana 17 Hoyos correctional institution. (Docket No. 2 at 5-7.) Initially, Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez did not 18 notify the defendants or anyone else of what had happened for fear of reprisal. (Id.) It 19 was not until several days later that Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez told a psychiatrist what happened, 20 who later notified Department of Corrections personnel. 21 Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez in isolation, where he tried to commit suicide by hanging himself in his Background (Id.) Said personnel put Civil No. 12-1731 (JAF) -2- 1 cell. (Id.) A correctional officer saw him and intervened. The Department then sent the 2 plaintiff to a psychiatric hospital, where he stayed for more than a week. (Id.) Castillo- 3 GonzÃ¡lez returned to the Sabana Hoyos correctional facility before being transferred to a 4 correctional facility in BayamÃ³n. (Id.) 5 Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez sought the same relief in Commonwealth courts that he seeks 6 here compensatory damages based, in part, on allegations that he was initially denied 7 prescribed medical care. Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez grieved his alleged maltreatment with the 8 Commonwealth s Administrative Remedies Division of the Department of Corrections, 9 (Docket No. 27-1), then filed two separate appeals in Commonwealth court. 10 The Commonwealth courts denied his requests for relief: Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez first appeal 11 was time-barred. His second appeal was dismissed by the Commonwealth Court of 12 Appeals after considering the merits and determining that the remedies awarded to 13 Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez, including transfer to a different penal institution and appropriate 14 medical care, were adequate and timely provided. 15 Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez then filed the pending complaint on September 6, 2012. 16 (Docket No. 2.) Codefendants moved separately to dismiss on various grounds. (Docket 17 Nos. 16 and 18.) Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez responded. (Docket No. 35.) 18 19 20 21 22 II. Standard A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 23 A pro-se party is held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 24 lawyers but is not excused from compliance with the rules of procedural and substantive 25 law. Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008). We must liberally construe the 26 submissions and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. Id. Civil No. 12-1731 (JAF) -3- 1 Federal courts must resolve subject-matter jurisdiction questions before addressing 2 the merits of a case. Donahue v. City of Boston, 304 F.3d 110, 117 (1st Cir. 2002) 3 (citing Steel 4 (1998)); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (court must be 5 assured that subject-matter jurisdiction exists before proceeding to the merit of a case). A 6 case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) 7 when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. See 8 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env t, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02 III. 9 10 11 12 13 Codefendants argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez 14 from seeking the same relief in his pending motion that the Commonwealth courts 15 previously considered and rejected. (Docket Nos. 16 at 3-5 and 18 at 7-9.) We agree. Discussion 16 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, derived from two United States Supreme Court 17 decisions, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia 18 Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), divests federal district courts of 19 subject-matter jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers complaining of 20 injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings 21 commenced. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 22 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Federal courts may reopen the civil judgments 23 of state courts to evaluate their correctness only through the certiorari jurisdiction of the 24 U.S. Supreme Court, even when a state court's decision raises constitutional 25 questions. See, e.g., Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284 (explaining that, under 26 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to Civil No. 12-1731 (JAF) -4- 1 hear direct appeals from unfavorable state-court judgments ); see also Miller v. Nichols, 2 58 F.3d 53, 59 (1st Cir. 2009). This principle of federalism is an essential safeguard 3 protecting our dual system of government against federal judicial encroachment. Atlantic 4 Coast Line R.R. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970). For the 5 purposes of the doctrine, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is treated as a state. Coors 6 Brewing Co. v. Mendez-Torres, 562 F.3d 3 (1st 2009). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine 7 can apply to final state decisions of lower courts as well as high courts. Hill v. Town of 8 Conway, 193 F.3d 33, 40 (1st Cir. 1999) (applying doctrine to intermediate appellate 9 decision of state court); see also Brown & Root, Inc. v. Breckenridge, 211 F.3d 194, 199 10 (4th Cir. 2000) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine encompasses final decisions of lower state 11 courts). 12 Here, Castillo-GonzÃ¡lez s complaint focuses on issues litigated before the Puerto 13 Rico Court of Appeals. That court found that the remedies requested by Castillo- 14 GonzÃ¡lez, including a transfer to an alternative penal institution and improved medical 15 care, were timely met by Corrections authorities. 16 GonzÃ¡lez s subsequent federal complaint seeks the same relief and compensatory 17 damages under §1983. (Docket No. 2.) His federal claim could succeed only if we were 18 to hold that the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals decision was incorrect. (Docket No. 27-3.) Castillo- 19 As in Rooker and Feldman, here the losing party in state court filed suit in federal 20 court after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the state-court 21 judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment, Exxon Mobil, 125 S.Ct. at 22 1526. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to review the Commonwealth court decision, 23 and we grant the motion to dismiss. Civil No. 12-1731 (JAF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 -5IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we hereby GRANT Defendants motion and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 31st day of May, 2013. 9 10 11 S/JosÃ© Antonio FustÃ© JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE 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.