Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Sagardía De Jesús ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 09-2273
    WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.;
    CONGREGACIÓN CRISTIANA DE LOS TESTIGOS
    DE JEHOVÁ DE PUERTO RICO, INC.,
    Plaintiffs, Appellants,
    v.
    ANTONIO M. SAGARDÍA DE JESÚS, in his official capacity as Secretary
    of Justice; LUIS G. FORTUÑO, in his official capacity as Governor;
    HÉCTOR MORALES VARGAS, in his official capacity as Commissioner of
    the Planning Board of Puerto Rico; HUMBERTO MARRERO RECIO, in his
    official capacity as Administrator of Regulations and Permits;
    MUNICIPALITY OF BAYAMÓN; MUNICIPALITY OF CAGUAS; MUNICIPALITY OF
    DORADO; MUNICIPALITY OF GURABO; MUNICIPALITY OF GUAYNABO;
    MUNICIPALITY OF PONCE; MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN; MUNICIPALITY OF
    TRUJILLO ALTO; PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a
    Pacifica; VILLA PAS, d/b/a/ Villa Paz, a/k/a Asociación de
    Residentes de Villa Paz,
    Defendants, Appellees.
    __________
    MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA ISABEL; MUNICIPALITY OF VEGA BAJA;
    MUNICIPALITY OF YAUCO; CIUDAD INTERAMERICANA DE BAYAMÓN, INC.,
    a/k/a Residentes Urbanización Ciudad Interamericana de Bayamón,
    Inc.; CIUDAD INTERAMERICANA, INC., d/b/a Ciudad Interamericana,
    a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Ciudad; EL MONTE DE PONCE, P.R.,
    INC., d/b/a El Monte, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes de la
    Urbanización El Monte de Ponce, P.R., Inc.; ESTANCIAS DE GRAN VISTA
    HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a Estancias de Gran Vista;
    ESTANCIAS DE TORTUGUERO, INC., d/b/a Estancias de Tortuguero, a/k/a
    Asociación Residentes Estancias de Tortuguero, Inc.; ESTANCIAS DE
    YAUCO, INC., d/b/a Estancias de Yauco, a/k/a Asociación de
    Residentes Urbanización Estancias de Yauco, Inc.; ESTANCIAS DEL
    TURABO, INC., d/b/a Estancias del Turabo, a/k/a Asociación de
    Residentes del Turabo, Inc.; G.H.S. INC., Garden Hills Sur; BAIROA
    GOLDEN GATE #2, INC., d/b/a Golden Gage II, a/k/a Asociación de
    Residentes de Bairoa Golden Gate #2; HACIENDA BORINQUEN, INC.,
    d/b/a Hacienda Borinquen, a/k/a Asociación de Residentes Hacienda
    Concordia, Inc.; HACIENDA CONCORDIA, INC., d/b/a Hacienda
    Concordia; LOS PRADOS DE DORADO, INC., d/b/a Los Prados Sur, a/k/a
    Asociación de Propietarios de la Urbanización Los Prados de Dorado,
    Inc.; MANSIÓN DEL SUR, INC., d/b/a Mansión del sur, a/k/a
    Asociación de Propietarios de Mansión del Sur, Inc.; PANORAMA
    HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a Panorama State; PARQUE
    FORESTAL, INC., d/b/a Parque Forestal, a/k/a Asociación de
    Propietarios de Parque Forestal, Inc.; PASEO MAYOR HOMEOWNERS
    ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a Paseo Mayor; PRADO ALTO EN TORRIMAR, INC.,
    d/b/a Prado Alto, a/k/a Asociación de Propietarios de Prado Alto en
    Torrimar, Inc.; SANTA CLARA, INC., d/b/a Santa Clara, a/k/a Consejo
    de Residentes de Santa Clara, Inc.; UNDARE, INC., d/b/a Santa
    Maria; VALLES DEL LAGO, INC., d/b/a Valles del Lago, a/k/a
    Asociación Comunidad Valles del Lago, Inc.; VEREDA DEL RÍO, INC.,
    d/b/a Vereda del Río; DEL TURABO, INC., d/b/a Estancias del Turabo,
    a/k/a Asociación Comunitaria del Turabo, Inc.,
    Defendants.
    Before
    Boudin, Ripple* and Selya,
    Circuit Judges.
    ORDER OF COURT
    Entered: April 1, 2011
    In response to this court's decision of February 7, 2011,
    several municipalities have petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en
    banc, and several others have been allowed to join in the petition.
    Our decision affirmed an order of the district court rejecting
    a facial challenge to Puerto Rico's Controlled Access Law but
    overturned a further order on summary judgment rejecting as-applied
    challenges. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Segardía
    de Jesús, No. 09-2273, 
    2011 WL 381609
     (1st Cir. Feb. 7, 2011). In
    the latter order, the district court held that even regular and/or
    discriminatory exclusion of Jehovah's Witnesses from public streets
    would not offend the First Amendment because other means existed for
    Jehovah's Witnesses to communicate their religious views to
    residents.
    The panel decision held that this blanket determination did not
    conform to Supreme Court First Amendment precedents and that a
    colorable claim existed that the constitutional rights of Jehovah's
    Witnesses were being abridged. Without resolving claims against any
    specific municipality or urbanization, this court held that further
    proceedings were required and outlined in skeleton form the
    *
    Of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    principles that should guide the district court in structuring
    injunctive relief if and where it turned out to be appropriate.
    In the petition for rehearing, the municipalities first claim
    that their statute of limitations defenses have been ignored, but, as
    the panel's decision explained, no damages have been sought; the
    present concern is with equitable relief; and nothing thus far shows
    that the plaintiffs slept on their rights to the prejudice of
    defendant.    Where, as here, systemic continuing violations are
    charged, statutes of limitations do not ordinarily bar relief. E.g.,
    Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz, 
    23 F.3d 607
    , 610 (1st Cir. 1994).
    The petition also suggests that the panel's decision erred in
    citing survey evidence collected by the plaintiffs, which the
    petitioners say is controverted. The panel decision cited the survey
    evidence as indicating that the plaintiffs' factual claims had a
    colorable basis; but the panel made no determination as to the
    accuracy or typicality of obstructions to access alleged against any
    particular municipality or urbanization, and any municipality or
    urbanization is free on remand to urge that it did not improperly bar
    access or discriminate.
    Finally, the municipalities repeat their claim that any improper
    obstructions were the work of the permitted urbanizations and not of
    the municipalities granting the permits.     Although the panel did
    reject claims that the urbanizations could be regarded as wholly
    private actors free of the constraints imposed by the First
    Amendment, the panel decision made no determination as to how far
    municipalities themselves--by virtue of their permitting activities,
    possible involvement with exclusionary acts, or other entanglements--
    might properly be subject to injunctive relief or any other remedy.
    Accordingly, the petition for panel rehearing is denied.
    By the Court:
    /s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk.
    cc:
    Nora Vargas Acosta
    Paul D. Polidoro
    Gregory Allen
    Eliezer Aldarondo-Ortiz
    Michael Craig McCall
    Luis E. Pabon-Roca
    Clarisa Sola-Gomez
    Luis A. Rodriguez-Munoz
    Pedro R. Vazquez, III
    Claudio Aliff-Ortiz
    Jose L. Gandara
    Marta L. River-Ruiz
    Simone Cataldi Malpica
    Alejandro G. Carrasco-Castillo
    Robert Millan
    Isabel M. Rodriguez Casellas
    Luis Sanchez-Betances
    Irializ Velez-Quinones
    Victor Ricardo Rodriguez Fuentes
    Jean Gabriel Vidal-Font
    Pedro J. Salicrup
    Irene M. Vera
    Jason Gonzalez Delgado
    Jose E. De la Cruz-Skerrett
    Rafael G. Rivera Rosario
    Joseph Deliz-Hernandez
    Amelia Caicedo-Santiago
    Romulo A. Suero-Ponce
    Miguel E. Miranda-Gutierrez
    Alberto J. Rodriguez-Ramos
    Leticia Casalduc Rabell
    Zaira Z. Giron Anadon
    Susana I. Penagaricano Brown
    Irene S. Soroeta-Kodesh
    Eduardo A. Vera-Ramirez
    Ferdinand Vargas
    Wandymar Burgos-Vargas
    Iris Alicia Martinez Juarbe
    Carmen E. Torres
    David M. Gossett
    Zachary L. Heiden
    Daniel Mach
    John Reinstein
    William Ramirez-Hernandez
    John W. Dineen
    Pacifica Homeowners Association
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2273O

Judges: Boudin, Ripple, Selya

Filed Date: 4/1/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024