Gonzalez-Hugues v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Justice et al, No. 3:2012cv01747 - Document 19 (D.P.R. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. GRANTED 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Signed by Judge Salvador E. Casellas on 1/14/2013. (AVB)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 IDALIA GONZALEZ-HUGUES, Plaintiff, 4 v. 5 6 Civil No. 12-1747 (SEC) COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, ET AL., 7 Defendants. 8 9 OPINION AND ORDER 10 Before the Court are the defendants motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter 11 jurisdiction (Docket # 17), and the plaintiff s opposition thereto (Docket # 18). After reviewing 12 the filings and the applicable law, the defendants motion is GRANTED. 13 Factual and Procedural Background 14 Pro se plaintiff Idalia Gonzalez-Hugues filed this putative federal-question suit on 15 September 11, 2012, alleging that co-defendant Puerto Rico Department of Education (the 16 Department ) discriminated against her, violating her Civil Rights and the US Equal 17 18 Opportunity Federal Law. Docket # 2, p. 1.1 She also alleges that the Department violated Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ( NCLB ), 20 U.S.C. § 6301. A succinct introduction to the facts of this case suffices to set the stage for the analysis. 19 The plaintiff, a high school teacher, says that the Department illegally authorized her 20 school director to damage and change plaintiff s contract three times, and didn t correct it . 21 Docket # 2, p. 1. She also avers that the director removed eight high school students from her 22 classroom and transferred them to the classroom of another teacher. Such actions, the plaintiff 23 24 25 26 1 Although her motion to appoint counsel was granted (Docket # 4), upon this court s inquiry regarding whether her allegations were actionable under the federal laws invoked in her complaint, her court-appointed counsel moved to withdraw, citing a substantial disagreement concerning the appropriate course of action to follow in this case. On November 9, 2012, the Court allowed her counsel s withdrawal and ordered the plaintiff to continue pro se. 1 2 Page 2 Civil No. 12-1747 (SEC) maintains, violate NLCB. Id. Relatedly, the plaintiff alleges that the director and the Coordinator of Title I-Phonogram from Educative Region of Caguas changed the conditions 3 of her contract, thereby violating the procedures mandated by Title I of NLCB. According to 4 the complaint, the plaintiff was not paid $4,200 for professional services rendered with the 5 Department in the summer of 2010. She requests one million dollars in economic and emotional 6 damage, as she suffered serious discrimination and labor persecution. Docket # 2, p. 4. 7 On December 14, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss under 12(b)(1), arguing that 8 neither Title I nor NLCB confer a private cause of action, and plaintiff s allegations are but 9 a breach of contract and state tort claim. Docket # 17, p. 102. The defendants also argue that 10 the plaintiff s damages claim is time barred and contravenes the Eleventh Amendment. Id. The 11 plaintiff resists dismissal, arguing that because the funds used to pay her contract derive from 12 the Office of Federal Affairs, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the controversy. Docket # 13 18. 14 15 Standard of Review Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is the appropriate vessel for challenging a court s subject-matter jurisdiction. Valentín v. Hospital Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 362-63 (1st Cir. 2001). In 16 reviewing a motion to dismiss under this rule, the court construes the plaintiffs allegations 17 liberally and may consider whatever evidence has been submitted, such as . . . depositions and 18 exhibits. Carroll v. United States, 661 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and 19 citations omitted). Accordingly, this court is empowered to [w]eigh the evidence and make 20 factual determinations, if necessary, to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. 21 Massachusetts Delivery Ass n v. Coakley, 671 F.3d 33, 40 n. 8 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Torres- 22 Negrón v. J & N Records, LLC, 504 F.3d 151, 163 (1st Cir. 2007)). When faced with a 23 jurisdictional challenge, importantly, courts must credit the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual 24 averments and indulge every reasonable inference in the pleader s favor. Merlonghi v. United 25 States, 620 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing Valentin, 254 F.3d at 363). A plaintiff faced with 26 subject-matter jurisdiction challenge has the burden to demonstrate its existence. Johansen v. 1 2 Page 3 Civil No. 12-1747 (SEC) United States, 506 F.3d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). But in order for a plaintiff s claim to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, due to the inadequacy of the 3 plaintiff s federal claim, that claim must be so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior 4 decisions of . . . [the Supreme Court], or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve 5 a federal controversy . . . . Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 6 666 (1974). 7 Applicable Law and Analysis 8 Federal question arises when a plaintiff sets forth allegations founded on a claim or right 9 arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. See 28 U.S .C. § 1331. 10 Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 11 of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), for a claim to arise under federal law, a right or 12 immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an 13 essential one, of the plaintiff s cause of action. Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 14 15 109, 112 (1936). As relevant here, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 578 (1979);see also Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S.Ct. 740, 748 (2012) ( A suit arises under the law that 16 creates the cause of action. (quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 17 U.S. 257, 260 (1916))). It thus follows that, [w]ithout [statutory intent], a cause of action does 18 not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy 19 matter, or how compatible with the statute. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-87 20 (2001). 21 The NCLB, which focuses strengthening elementary and secondary schools, is a 22 comprehensive education reform statute. Ass n of Cmty. Organizations for Reform Now v. 23 New York City Dept. of Educ., 269 F. Supp. 2d 338, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 24 6301(1)-(12)). Here, the plaintiff posits that the fact that federal funds are at play here 25 automatically confer this court with jurisdiction under NLCB. This argument is without merit. 26 As a threshold matter, she has cited no authority standing for such a proposition. And it turns 1 2 Page 4 Civil No. 12-1747 (SEC) out that quite the opposite is true: Every court that has considered whether NCLB provides a 3 private cause of action has decided it does not. E.g., Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 456 n. 6 4 (2009) (noting that NCLB does not provide a private right of action and is enforceable only 5 by the agency charged with administering it ) (citations omitted); Blakely v. Wells, 380 F. App x 6, 8 (2d Cir. May. 28, 2010) (unpublished). The plaintiff, then, cannot shoulder her 6 burden of providing the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction, as her claim is indeed 7 8 insubstantial, implausible . . . [and] completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy . . . . Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 414 U.S. at 666. 9 Finally, the plaintiff s cursory and undeveloped mentions to serious discrimination and 10 labor persecution, and to Civil Rights and the US Equal Opportunity Federal Law are plainly 11 insufficient to survive dismissal. She makes absolutely no allegations explaining how she was 12 discriminated against, and whether such discrimination falls under a protected category. In any 13 event, because these allegations were not even pled as a claim, they must be dismissed. 14 Marrero-Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 677 F.3d 497, 501 (1st Cir. 2012). The 15 plaintiff s pro se status does not insulate her from complying with basic pleading requirements. 16 Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997) ( Pro se status does not insulate a party 17 from complying with procedural and substantive law. ). Accordingly, such generalities fall way 18 short of stating a plausible entitlement to relief. See Liu v. Amerco, 677 F.3d 489, 497 (1st Cir. 2012). 19 To be sure, the Court sympathizes with the plaintiff s toll. But sympathy . . . is not a 20 21 sound basis for administering a system of justice, Sheet Metal Workers International Asso. v. Carter, 450 U.S. 949, 953 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), and there being no jurisdictional 22 basis, the Court is simply without authority to entertain her claims. This court takes very 23 seriously its responsibility to preserve its legitimacy by respecting the limits of its jurisdiction. 24 Having established a lack of jurisdiction, the Court need not entertain the defendant s other 25 arguments. 26 1 2 3 4 Page 5 Civil No. 12-1747 (SEC) Conclusion For the reasons stated, the defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Consequently, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 14th day of January, 2013. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S/Salvador E. Casellas SALVADOR E. CASELLAS U.S. Senior 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.