Gonzalez v. Otero
172 F. Supp. 3d 477
D.P.R.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Vicente González (Chief of Police) and Victor Franco (Investigator) were placed on paid administrative leave during a 2007 criminal investigation at Fort Buchanan; both were later reinstated and suffered no loss of pay.
- Franco filed an EEO formal complaint (May 24, 2007) which the Army dismissed May 31, 2007 for failure to state a claim; Franco did not pursue a timely appeal to the EEOC or timely federal suit. Gonzalez received EEO counseling but did not file a timely formal complaint.
- Plaintiffs filed a joint civil complaint (March 18, 2008) raising Bivens constitutional torts and RICO claims against multiple Army officers in their personal capacities; the Third Amended Complaint (Sept. 1, 2009) kept personal-capacity claims and added RICO allegations.
- Many defendants were never properly served within Rule 4(m) (or Rule 4 deadline extensions denied); four defendants were served (Velez, Santiago, Johnson, Pederson), and United States was never served.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies/time-bar, lack of personal jurisdiction/service defects, absolute immunity for witness testimony, preemption by CSRA/Title VII, failure to state plausible claims (Twombly/Iqbal), RICO insufficiency, and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / administrative exhaustion | Plaintiffs framed claims as Bivens and RICO; not an EEO appeal | Franco failed to timely appeal the agency final decision and plaintiffs filed suit months after administrative deadlines | Complaint is time-barred / plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies; dismissal of related claims |
| Service of process (Rule 4(m)) | Plaintiffs sought leave to serve by publication for several unserved defendants | Plaintiffs offered no good cause for missing Rule 4(m) deadlines | Motion for service by publication denied; claims against unserved defendants dismissed without prejudice |
| Witness immunity for testimony | Plaintiffs alleged defendants gave false testimony and conspiracies | Witnesses have absolute immunity for testimony; civil suits cannot be used to punish testimony | Claims based solely on witness testimony dismissed on absolute immunity grounds |
| Bivens / RICO viability and qualified immunity | Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations and a RICO conspiracy to deny promotions based on national origin | CSRA/Title VII provide exclusive remedies for federal employment disputes; allegations are legally and factually insufficient; qualified immunity bars damages; RICO predicate/continuity lacking | Bivens and RICO claims fail (precluded or implausible); qualified immunity grants defendants protection; remaining served defendants dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII/administrative remedies provide exclusive avenue for federal employment discrimination)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (witnesses immune from civil suit for testimony, even if perjured)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (RICO requires pattern showing continuity of predicate acts)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; discard conclusory allegations in plausibility analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework for constitutional claims)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 1995) (witnesses, including those who give false testimony, are absolutely immune from § 1983 suits)