IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENA DE PROFESORES UNIVERSITARIOS DEL RECINTO DE RIO PIEDRAS, represented through its member and PRESIDENT DR. YOLANDA RIVERA CASTILLO; CASE NO: RE: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CIVIL RIGHTS. JOSE FIGUEROA SANCHA, in his personal capacity and acting in his official capacity as Police Superintendent; LEOVIGILDO SANCHEZ, acting his personal capacity and official capacity; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, defendants of unknown name who have urticipated in concert with the defendants DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT NOW COMES: Plaintiff ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENA DE PROFESORES UNIVERSITARIOS DEL RECINTO DE RIO PIEDRAS (hereinafter APPU) and its President and member Dr.Yolanda Rivera Castillo, through its undersigned attomeys and very respectfully PRAY, STATE, and ALLEGE as follows: 1. This court has jurisdiction to seek to vindicate rights protected by the First ‘Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4). 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C, Sections 2201 and 2202 this Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper. 3. Plaintiff, APPU, is a faculty association of the University of Rio Piedras Campus, composed of faculty of that university campus and its high schools. 4, Defendant José Figueroa Sancha is Police Superintendent of the Commonwealthof Puerto Rico Police. He retired as FBI-San Juan Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC), on December 31, 2008 took the position of Police Superintendent upon being nominated by the Hon. Luis Fortuiio Burset, governor of Puerto Rico. On April 21, 2010 a student assembly at the University of Puerto Rico declared a strike on campus protesting, inter alia, cutbacks of the tuition fee waivers of honor students, of students with special skills and athletes, as well as the climination of other student benefits. 6. On April 22, 2010, given that nobody appeared on campus to study or work, the chancellor declared and administrative closure of the campus. 7. On May 13, the University administration decided to sponsor a second student assembly, to be held off campus, where students were to decide, inter alia, if they wanted either to continue the strike or put an end to it. The University President, José Ramén de la Torre, supported hy other high ranking Commonwealth officials working for the Hon. Luis Fortuito, ‘assumed that students would vote to end the strike, and as a result had no “Plan B” in case they voted to continue the strike. 8. To the surprise of UPR officials, students overwhelmingly voted to continue while continuing negotiations with the University. As a result, University officials decided again to shut down operations on campus for a period less than 30 days. 9. Aspart of that second shut down of administrative operations, the Chancellor sent a letter on May 13, 2010, informing the campus community that “no person, with the exception of campus security personnel will be allowed to enter the campus.” The letter does not order persons already inside the campus to be evieted or leave campus. The order does not prohibit the delivery of food, medicine, clothing or water to persons already inside the campus. The order does not request a closing of water and electricity to the campus. 10. On May 14, defendant Figueroa Sancha met with the Chancellor and otherdefendants of unknown name, and approved an unconstitutional scheme, whereby without charging or arresting the students wito remained on campus of any crime, and without any order from University official to evict the students from U.S. depository libraries and other public facilities on campus, the police would force them to abandon the campus by prohibiting free speech on the streets surrounding the campus, depriving those inside of food and substenance, ‘while prohibiting acts of free expression in support of the students through donations of food, ‘water, and other support that easily flows through the permeable gates of the campus. aD Gs: May 14, 2010, Police Col. Miguel Mejias, told reporters that he had orders from defendant Figueroa Sancha not to allow food to enter the campus. ‘Thus Police would now attempt to create a Berlin Wall around the Rio Piedras campus. On May 14, 2010 Deputy Superintendent Rosa Carrasquillo told reporters that the Police was implementing the orders of Figueroa Sancha and that they would see “on the go” whether persons would be arrested for ‘attempting to deliver food into the campus. 12. Defendant Leovigildo Vazquez stated on May 16, 2010, that he had orders, not only to allow persons from entering campus, but to prevent the delivery of food and water to those inside the campus. From information and/or belief, as reported in the press, such orders came from the Police Superintendent and defendants John Doe and Mary Doe. Likewise, the Chancellor did not order to cut off water and electricity from the campus, but defendants arranged to do it anyway. 13. ‘As of May 16, 2010, those remaining in side campus have never been ordered to evacuate campus, have not been charged with any crime, and are therefore Jawfully remaining on campus premises and have committed no crimes, However, Police has treated the students as criminals that should be subject to siege warfare, to justify a siege, not unlike the tragedy of the siege performed on of the Branch Dividians in Waco Texas back in 1993.14, The APPU decided on May 15, 2010, to continue with its peaceful support to the students inside the campus by setting up tents and holding peaceful expressions and assembly off-campus on the public streets and sidewalks of the city of San Juan, where the Constitution of the United States applies to all. 1g The APPU has also decided to express its support to students by donating food, ‘water and medicine to the students, without entering the campus, but delivering it through the campus fence to those inside, in the very same way that corporate persons donate money to politicians to run for office in the exorcise of their free speech. 16. Acting without legal authority and without any crime committed by those on campus, defendants have decided to suppress the free expression of the APPU, including its donations to the students. 17. On May 16, 2010, parents and APPU supporters were participating in an activity sponsored APPU, The activity was located in the Avenida Géndara, in the east gate of the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras campus, where the “Calle Sur” enters the University through the School of Education. 18, The APPU had its activity located under a movable tent located on the side of the gate, on the sidewalk. The gate was completely closed and blocked with debris on the inside of the University and nobody, not a student, not a police officer was using the gate, which served no purpose, 19, The APPU tent was located on the sidewalk and did not interfere with the opening of the gates, which were locked and full of debris. The tent was on the sidewalk, in front of a banner that read in the Spanish language “ven lucha conmigo” (‘come struggle with me"). See Exh. 1. 20. While participating in the activity in front of the gates to show support to students,camped in tents inside the University, a Commonwealth policeman, called Captain Vazquez, ordered the APPU and its supporters to remove the tent and then started to cut the rope of the tent with the aid of other police, at the site. 21. Captain Vazquez then ordered other officers to remove the tents without the authorization of its lawful owners, and placed the tent on the other side of the avenue, far away from the students who were camped inside, Furthermore, there was no need to restrict the speech at the gate, for it remains, to this day, closed and there is no access through the gate, or at the sidewalk, which such a broad restriction. 22. However, with no need to restrict speech, Captain Vazquez. then came back and ordered the APPU and its supporters to move from the sidewalk and to go to the other side of the avenue, far away from the sidewalk that surrounds the university. 23. Subsequently that same May 16, 2020, Lieutenant Rivera-Sevilla was asked by plaintiff if the could put the tent back on the sidewalk: next to the closed gate, and he stated that we were forbidden because Vazquez had given orders to remove the tent. On information and/or belief those orders were given by defendant Leovigildo Vazquez or defendant Figueroa-Sancha. 24. The police captain and other fellow officers at his command removed the tent and placed it on the other side of the street. 25, The APPU and its supporters were also told that they could not stand on the sidewalk where the tent had been placed and could not express themselves there, because they had “orders” to vacate everyone from the premises on the sidewalk next to the gate. Those orders, again by information and/or belief, came ftom defendant Vazquez. 26. Also, on the same moming of May 16, 2020, APPU, its supporters, which include parents of students, attempted to pass oranges and bottled water through the gates the students, and their children, Those supporters were immediately approached by three police officers inseemingly army-colored green suits who stated that they had orders not to permit food to be niven to the students inside the University. 27. Asatesult of the order, and of the police officers acting under defendants’ orders, the APPU and its supporters cannot express themselves by donating food, medicine and water to the lawful citizens that remain inside the campus, since, when they have done so, they have been ‘beaten or threatened with arrest. 28. APPU and its members are being subjected to viewpoint discrimination by Defendants who do not want the APPU to express themselves by giving food, water and medical supplies to lawful citizens that remain on campus, exercising their Federally-guaranteed rights to free speech. 29, Absent this Court's immediate Order permitting APPU, its members and supporters to express themselves on the sidewalks on campus and to allow the APPU to express itself by donating, food water and clothing to lawful citizens who remain on campus the APPU will suffer irreparable harm, since it will not be able to express its support in a timely manner, given that starvation, or the voluntary abandonment of the campus will result in the inability for the APU significantly express itself. 30, The restrictions on speech and assembly imposed by defendants on public sidewalks and streets are extremely overbroad, since the place where the activities have taken place are closed to public access and blocked from the inside. 31. In denying or refusing a permit to Plaintiff to access to the sidewalk immediately across from the Treasury Financial Facility because of the viewpoint of their political message, Defendants violated and continue to violate Plaintifis’ First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and speak, and to express themselves with donations, not unlike corporate patrons of politicians, which rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment and for which remedies areseemingly army-colored green suits who stated that they had orders not to permit food to be niven to the students inside the University. 27. Asarresult of the order, and of the police officers acting under defendants’ orders, the APPU and its supporters eannot express themselves by donating food, medicine and water to the lawful citizens that remain inside the campus, since, when they have done so, they have been beaten or threatened with arrest. 28. APPU and its members are being subjected to viewpoint discrimination by Defendants who do not want the APPU to express themselves by giving food, water and medical supplies to lawful citizens that remain on campus, exercising their Federally-guaranteed rights to free speech. 29. Absent this Court's immediate Order permitting APPU, its members and supporters to express themselves on the sidewalks on campus and to allow the APPU to express itself by donating, food water and clothing to lawful citizens who remain on campus the APPU will suffer irreparable harm, since it will not be able to express its support in a timely manner, given that starvation, or the voluntary abandonment of the campus will result in the inability for the APPU significantly express itself, 30. The resirictions on speech and assembly imposed by defendants on public sidewalks and streets are extremely overbroad, since the place where the activities have taken place are closed to public access and blocked from the inside. 31. In denying or refusing a permit to Plaintiff to access to the sidewalk immediately across from the Treasury Financial Facility because of the viewpoint of their political message, Defendants violated and continue to violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and speak, and to express themselves with donations, not unlike corporate patrons of politicians, which rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment and for which remedies areprovided by 42 USC. § 1983. 32. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as allowed by the United States Constitution. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court will ‘A. Grant Plaintiffs preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendant, their subordinates, employees, agents and those acting in concert with to immediately give access to set up a tent on the sidewalk by the gate located in the Avenida Gandara, in the east gate of the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras campus, where the “Calle Sur” enters the University through the School of Education, or on any of the sidewalks surrounding the ‘campus. B. Grant PlaintifYs preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to order their subordinates, employees, agents and those acting in concert with them to immediately stop preventing the Plaintiffs or its members from lawfully donating food, medicine and other ‘goods to persons inside the Rio Piedras campus. C. Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as they may be entitled to, including damages; and D. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. FE. That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as (o this court seems just and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. At San Juan Puerto Rico, May 17, 2010. s/ Edelmiro Salas Gonzalez, s/ José Luis Ramirez de Leon EDELMIRO SALAS GONZALEZ JOSE L. RAMIREZ DE LEON, LLM USDC Bar No. 218004 USDC Bar No. 206910 Urb. Villa Nevarez PO Box 190251 1072 Calle 17 San Juan, PR 00919-0251 San Juan, PR 00927 Tel. (787) 163-0879 Tel. (787) 376-4659 Fax, (187) 282-6682 Fax, (787) 622-6230 ec edelmiro.salasIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ASOCIACION PUERTORRIQUENA DE, CASE NO: PROFESORES UNIVERSITARIOS DEL RECINTO DE RIO PIEDRAS, represented through its member and PRESIDENT DR. YOLANDA RIVERA CASTILLO; RE; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CIVIL RIGHTS v. JOSE FIGUEROA SANCHA, in his personal capacity and acting in his official capacity as Police Superintendent; LEOVIGILDO SANCHEZ, acting his personal capacity and official capacity; JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, defendants of unknown name who have ticipated in concert with the defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY PURSUANT TO 28 USC $1746 I, Yolanda Rivera Castillo, of legal age, single, university professor and President of the ‘Asociacién Puertorriquefia de Profesores Universitarios (APPU), and resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico, do hereby declare and state as follows: 1. TL work as a Professor of English in the Rio Piedras campus of the University of Puerto Rico, and chair the local chapter of the APPU as well 2. As Chair of the local Rio Piedras chapter of the APPU, I state that the facts enumerated in the complaint were verified by myself, based upon my own personal knowledge, information declared by other declarants under penalty of perjury and by newspaper reports, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 16, 2010, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. folanda Rivera-Castillo