Torres-Santiago v. Ortiz-Pagan

• Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: January 17, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO JOSUE TORRES-SANTIAGO

Plaintiff CIVIL NO. 23-1151 (RAM) v.

LESTER ORTIZ-PAGAN, CARMEN N. ORTIZ-GONZALEZ, AND FRANCÉS- VIVES-SULIVERES

Defendants

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, United States District Judge On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff Josue Torres-Santiago (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se prisoner civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 2). Although Plaintiff used a form with both English and Spanish text, the portions completed by Plaintiff that provide the details of his claim are only in Spanish. However, all filings, pleadings, and proceedings in the United States District court for the District of Puerto Rico must be conducted in the English language. See 48 U.S.C. § 864; L. CV. R. 5(c). On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff received the following notice of defective filing: Pleading or document is not in the English language and plaintiff has not moved for permission to file pleading in the Spanish language. L.Civ.R. 5. The Prisoner did not attach a statement certified by the Civil No. 23-1151 Page 2

appropriate institutional officer, showing all receipts, expenditures, and balances during the last six months in his/her institutional account. Notice of Compliance Deadline due by 4/25/2023.

(Docket No. 5). Plaintiff failed to comply with this deadline or correct his defective pleading. Throughout these proceedings, the Court has appointed Plaintiff with three (3) different pro-bono counsel, all of whom have withdrawn. (Docket Nos. 10, 14, 17). On October 31, 2023, the Court issued the following order: By November 30, 2023, plaintiff will show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docket No. 29). Plaintiff failed to comply. District Court judges, in an exercise of the inherent authority to regulate their dockets, may rely upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b) when considering whether to involuntarily dismiss a case sua sponte. See García-Perez v. Hosp. Metropolitano, 597 F.3d 6, 7 (1st Cir. 2010); Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assocs., 478 F.3d 40, 43 (1st Cir. 2007). The First Circuit has held that “a party’s disregard of a court order is a paradigmatic example of extreme misconduct” which may warrant dismissal. Torres-Vargas v. Pereira, 431 F.3d 389, 393 (1st Cir. 2005). When a “court appropriately forewarns a plaintiff of the consequences of future Civil No. 23-1151 Page 3

noncompliance with an unambiguous order, the court need not exhaust less toxic sanctions before dismissing a case [.]” Id. The Court is compelled to dismiss the Complaint in light of Plaintiff’s failure to (1) file pleadings in the English language as required by 48 U.S.C. § 864, Local Rule 5(c); and (2) comply this Court’s orders. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket No. 2 is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 17th day of January 2024. S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH United States District Judge