Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO SALLY PRIESTER, MD Civil No. Plaintiffs v. CIVIL RIGHTS PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; VICTOR RAMOS; DR. FREDDIE ROMAN AVILES; DR. VERONICA RODRIGUEZ DE LA CRUZ Defendants VERIFIED COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiff Dr. Sally Priester brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to the defendant's deprivation of Dr. Priester’s constitutional rights to free speech without due process. I. NATURE OF THE ACTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as theCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 2 of 31 Defendants reside in the district and all events giving rise to the claims set forth in this Complaint occurred in this district. IL THEPARTIES 3. The Plaintiff Sally Priester (Dr. Priester), is a Puerto Rico licensed physician- scientist with a direct-care private practice in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and a member of the Puerto Rico Surgeons Association. 4, Defendant Puerto Rico Department of Health is a unit of the Puerto Rico Government and a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Medical Discipline and Licensing Board, which violated Dr. Priester’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process is ascribed to the Department of Health. 5. Co-defendant Dr. Victor Ramos Otero (Ramos) was at all times relevant the president of the Puerto Rico Surgeons Association (the Association), which is a juridical entity that was authorized to be created by Act 7-1994, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 20 § 73 and is ‘composed of physicians who hold a license to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Dr. Ramos is sued here in his individual and official capacities. 6. Co-defendant Dr. Freddie Roman Avilés (Dr. Romén) was at all times relevant, the president of the Medical Discipline and Licensing Board (Licensing Board), which is attached to the Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. As president of the Licensing, Board, Defendant Romédn voted for and signed a GAG order against Dr. Priester. He is sued in his individual capacity. 7. Dr. Versnica Rodriguez de la Cruz (Dr. Rodriguez) was at all times relevant the secretary of the Licensing Board. In her capacity as Secretary of the Licensing Board, Dr. 2Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 3 of 31 Rodriguez voted for and signed a GAG order against Dr. Priester. She is sued in her individual capacity. 8. Co-defendants John Smith and Peter Poe, whose names are unknown, are the ‘other members of the Association that conspired with Codefendant Ramos to file a claim against Plaintiff before the Licensing Board. They are sued in their individual capacities. 9. Co-defendants Jane Doe and Mary Moe, whose names are unknown, are members of the Association's Governing Board who conspired to and who may have voted in favor of filing a claim against Dr. Priester before the Medical Discipline and Licensure Board. They are sued in their individual capacities. 10. Co-defendants John Doe and Richard Roe, whose names are unknown, are employees or officers of the Puerto Rico Department of Health who conspired with Co- defendants Ramos to deprive Dr. Priester of her constitutional rights to freedom of speech without due process of law. They are sued here in their individual capacities. 11, Co-defendants Peter Roe and Jane Roe, whose names are unknown, are members ‘or former members of the Licensing Board who conspired with Dr. Ramos and/or who voted in favor of starting a formal complaint and issuing a GAG Order against Dr. Priester. They are being sued in their individual capacities. TI Factual Background 12. The medical profession in Puerto Rico is regulated by the Medical Discipline and Licensing Board, which is attached to the Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 20 § 132. 13. Dr. Priester is a medical doctor and scientist with more than 20 years of clinical 3Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 4 of 31 experience in disaster medicine and public health, and 10 peer-reviewed abstract, book chapter, or medical journal manuscript publications 14, She has a license to practice medicine in Puerto Rico and, by operation of law, is required to be a member of the Association to practice medicine in Puerto Rico. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 20§ 73(g) 15. On or about November 20, 2020, Dr. Priester was invited by Mrs. Cecilia Furlan, founder of the group called Médicos por la Verdad, Puerto.Rico Chapter, to speak at a press conference. There, Dr. Priester gave her opinion about several issues concerning the government's response and restrictive measures to the Covid-19 virus. 16. Dr, Priester raised reasonable concerns regarding, among other things, the Department of Health’s early Covid-19 vaccination campaign, and the way that the Government of Puerto Rico and its health department were handling the situation of the Covid-19 virus. 17. Based on information and belief, Dr. Priester also expressed concerns about the Association's use of federal funding from the Department of Health to force underrepresented minority of US, citizens to receive an early version COVID-19 vaccine under threat of permanent loss of livelihood. 18. Dr. Priester was invited to speak again, on November 29, 2020, at an event at Plaza de la Libertad. 19. Upon information and belief, Dr. Ramos was not present in that event, but unknown defendants John Doe and Richard Roe, who were employees or officers of the Puerto Rico Department of Health at the time, were present at Plaza de la Libertad on November 29, 2021, and were taking notes.Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 5 of 31 20. Upon information and belief, John Doe and Richard Roe, acting under color of state law, and with the purpose of retaliating against Dr. Priester for her protected speech, later spoke to and shared their notes with Dr. Ramos. 21, They also conspired with Dr. Ramos to send a complaint letter to the Licensing Board accusing Dr. Priester of unethical conduct and requesting the Licensing Board to issue a GAG Order against Dr. Priester. 22. OnDecember 1, 2020, Defendant Victor Ramos, acting under color of state law as the President of the Association, with intentional disregard for Dr. Priester’s rights of free speech and due process, sent a complaint letter to the Executive Director of the Licensing Board, Ms. Norma Torres Delgado, requesting that Dr. Priester be investigated under frivolous allegations of “unethical conduct,” and requesting the Licensing Board to issue a GAG order against Dr. Priester. 23. In support of the complaint letter, Codefendant Ramos referenced the following, newspaper article: https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/locales/notas/ciudadanos-se-reunen- en-condado-y-cuestionan-la-emergencia-del-covid-19 24. The only statements that the article attributes to Dr. Priester are as follows: “In three months science is not going to change. It is disrespectful and I stand here for the doctors who do not speak, who are not working and who have been marginalized because they do not want to be part of this system.” 25, The complaint letter also included a link to a Facebook page, which Dr. Ramos stated, contained a two-hour video of a conference held on November 20, 2020, where doctors, a psychologist, and lawyers appeared criticizing the measures taken by the government in 5Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 6 of 31 handling the pandemic. 26. _Inits referral, Dr. Ramos and his conspirators cherry-picked the following phrases and sentences expressed by Dr. Priester without putting them in the proper context: referring to the pandemic as "PLANDemia’; "How dare they make a campaign out of terror and impotence..." "Itis a lack of respect, we in the medical community, and for doctors to lend themselves to this kind of thing, Ending this farce. [in relation to the management and efforts of access to health services Dr. Priester expresses with false information and we quote:] (Translation ours). "I don't understand why medical centers stich as CDTS [Diagnostic and Treatment Centers] are closed, forcing patients to receive care solely at emergency rooms. It is unbelievable to hear that they cannot contact primary care physicians, Don't let them scare you any more, because a time will come when the 14 days of incubation will NOT exist, and the Health Department is going to have to in its judgment at some point it is going to have to explain where it has gotten so much data that is not scientifically proven globally.” “We don’t have to wait for any vaccine..’ “No child is going to be vaccinated...” Dr. Priester’s protected speech 27. Although Dr. Ramos’s description does not accurately portray Dr. Priester’s expressions, Dr. Priester indeed has referred to the pandemic as “Plandemia.” This is a way to express her opinion that the government has exaggerated to some extent the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic to increase the receipt of federal funds, create fear among the population, and justify the imposition of severe government restrictions, lockdowns, and mandates upon the population. 28. Dr. Priester believes that the cost-benefit analysis of the measures taken by theCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 7 of 31 Government do not justify the stringent restrictions that had been imposed at the time. A significant number of people, including medical doctors, lawyers, and scientists in Puerto Rico, the United States, and worldwide, agreed at the time and still agree with Dr. Priester. These inchide Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist ‘with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. See, eg, The Great Barrington Declaration, available at httpsu//gbdeclaration.or 29, Asto the second paragraph, Dr. Priester was expressing her frustration that she ‘was seeing an increased number of low-income patients who reported going to her office because the Diagnostic and Treatment Centers in Puerto Rico were closed. She was also stating that, at the time, there were no proper scientific studies demonstrating that the incubation period for COVID-19 was fourteen days. An accurate prediction: recent studies have shown that the average incubation period for COVID is significantly shorter—closer to five days. Dr. Priester was also worried that mandating a 14-days quarantine for people who may only have been exposed to the virus could develop or worsen mental health issues for some patients. 30. Whether government shares the risk-benefit analysis professed by Dr. Priester is beside the point: Dr. Priester should have a first amendment right to express her opinion on these matters without fear of retaliation.Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 8 of 31 31. As to the second-to-last statements, Dr. Priester was stating her opinion that the government did not have to wait until the vaccines were available to ease the stringent restrictions and mandates that were being implemented. A belief that is shared by prominent doctors and scientist. See The Great Barrington Declaration, ante. On this point, it should be noted that Puerto Rico has been and is still implementing the most stringent Covid-related restrictions, in the United States. 32, As to the last referenced statement, Plaintiff was also stating her opinion against. a proposal that had been discussed to amend Puerto Rico law to mandate Covid vaccination for children attending school. 33. Regarding the statements she did make in Plaza de la Libertad —which weren't in the statements selected by Dr. Ramos, and incorporated later by the Licensing Board—Dr. Priester also denounced several times that the PCR tests being administered at the time did not ‘work properly, not least because they couldn’ differentiate between COVID-19 and influenza. (On this front, in July 2021, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) announced that “[alfter December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019- nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” https://www.cdegov/esels/dils/locs/2021/07-21- 2021-lab-alert-Changes CDC RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 Testing Lhtml. The CDC also “encourage|d] laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.” Id 34. Plaintiff has also denounced policies that incentivized medical doctors and hospitals to declare COVID as the cause of death of many patients and the lack of autopsies that 8Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 9 of 31 were being conducted to determine whether COVID was the actual cause of death. 35. Alsonot included in the statements selected by Defendants is that Dr. Priester was stating her opinion that a CBC with differential should be used to properly diagnose COVID-19 and that hydroxychloroquine should be available as a prophylactic or early treatment for COVID patients. 36. Importantly, Dr. Priester stated that she welcomed debate and communication with colleagues who had different views. Defendant Ramos’s Complaint Letter 37. Inhis complaint letter, Defendant Ramos requested to the Licensing Board, among itiated against Dr. Priester, that a “disciplinary other things, that a formal investigation be i action” be taken against Dr. Priester, and that a GAG Order be issued as soon as the investigation commenced. 38. Although the complaint letter was purportedly sent on behalf of the Association, it was signed only by Defendant Ramos, who is not even a member of the Council of Ethics and Disciplinary Proceedings of the Association (the Council) 39. On December 1, 2020, when the complaint letter was sent to the Licensing Board, none of the members of the Association’s Governing Board notified Dr. Priester that they had received allegations of “unethical conduct” against her. 40. The complaint letter was sent to the Licensing Board without giving Dr. Priester the due process established by the Association's regulations, and without giving her the ‘opportunity to respond to the allegations of “unethical misconduct.” 41. On December 1, when the complaint letter was sent to the Licensing Board, there 9Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 10 of 31 were no complaints or allegations against Dr. Priester about her medical practice or patient care. 42. The complaint letter was related only to her public expressions on the government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. 43. Article 6 of the Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Surgeons Association Act, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 20 § 73e, dictates that “[tJhe Association shall have the power to receive and investigate the complaints filed with regard to the conduct of the members in the practice of the profession, and ivi i arties the opportunity to be heard, if evidence is found of possible, unethical or illegal conduct, the Association shall report the complaint with its observations and. recommendations to the Board ....” (Emphasis added.) 44, Article 4.1(13) of the General Regulation of the Association provides that the Association may receive and investigate complaints concerning the conduct of licensed medical doctors and refer them to the Council, and Article 13.1 (5) of the General Regulation states that the Council is the internal directive body of the Association in charge of regulating processes for receiving, investigating, and referring complaints concerning ethical violations to the Licensing, Board. 45, Article 13.1(6) of the General Regulation states that the Council shall receive and. investigate the complaints that are filed against members of the Association. It also says that, after having given the interested parties an opportunity to be heard, the Council may refer the file to the Association's Governing Board. 46. Article 13.2 of the General Regulation states that no member of another committee or directive body of the Association may be sworn in or occupy a position in the Council. As a result, Victor Ramos, as the President of the Association and a member of the Governing Board, 10Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 11 of 31 cannot occupy a position in the Council of Ethics and Disciplinary Proceedings. 47. Under Article 13.5(6) of the General Regulation, the Council may initiate an investigation sua sponte without the need for a referral but only with the consent of five of its members 48, Pursuant to Article 13.6 (3) of the General Regulation, after concluding an investigation related to a complaint, the Council shall render a report to the Association's Governing Board with factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendations. A decision to refer a complaint must be supported by at least five of the voting members; while a decision to dismiss a complaint requires only a simple majority. 49. According to Article 13.6 of the General Regulation, while processing any complaint, due process guarantees shall be afforded to the defendant including the right to be notified of the charges; be heard; call witnesses; present documentary evidence and expert testimony; cross-examine the witnesses against them; and be represented by counsel, 50. Over a month after filing the complaint letter to the Licensing Board, DefendantRamos held one or more meetings with members of the Association’s Governing Board about the complaint filed against Dr. Priester. 51. _Atthose meetings, Dr. Ramos attempted to convince members of the Association's Governing Board to ratify his ultra vires actions of referring the complaint letter against Dr. Priester to the Licensing Board without the due process established under the Association's General Regulations. 52. During the meeting(s), a member of the Governing Board noted that in the United States there are hundreds of thousands of medical doctors and groups that are protesting ulCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 12 of 31 government methods in handling the Covid pandemic, including promoting vaccination, which had just recently under emergency use authorization by the FDA. He added that Dr. Priester is, not making things up. Id. 53. Ona meeting held on February 24, 2021, an attorney hired by Defendant Ramos told Dr. Sissy Barreto, a member of the Association's Governing Board that the Association purposely chose not to file a formal complaint before the Licensing Board, but rather a complaint letter requesting the Licensing Board to initiate an investigation, to not compromise the Association. 54. In response, Dr. Sissy Barreto told Defendant Ramos that it was inappropriate to hold a vote on February 24 because it could be interpreted as a makeup or fix. Ramos said that, there was no need for a vote, unless someone at the Board had called Dr. Priester to tell her that no actual vote had been held. Dr. Barreto made clear that she was against codefendant Ramos sending the complaint letter to the Licensing Board without following the procedures set forth in the Association's General Regulation. 55. It is unclear at this time whether the Association’s Governing Board ever held a vote to ratify Defendant Ramos’ ultra vires actions. 56. By sending the complaint letter to the Licensing Board without giving Dr. Priester the opportunity to be heard, Defendant Ramos violated Article 6 of the Puerto Rico Surgeons Association Act, which provides that “The Association shall have the power to receive and investigate the complaints filed with regard to the conduct of the members in the practice of the profession, and after giving the interested parties the opportunity to be heard, if evidence is found of possible unethical or illegal conduct, the Association shall report the complaint with its 12Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 13 of 31 observations and recommendations to the Board. ...” (Emphasis supplied.) ‘The Licensing Board’s deficient and partialized investigation 57. Recall that defendants John Doe and Richard Roe, who were employees or officers of the Puerto Rico Department of Health at the time, attended the Plaza de la Libertad event on November 29, 2020, and took notes of the event—two days before Defendant Ramos filed the complaint letter before the Licensing Board, which is ascribed to the Department of Health. 58. In response to the complaint letter, on January 15, 2021, the Executive Director of, the Licensing Board, acting under color of Puerto Rico law, summoned Dr, Priester to an investigative hearing to be held on February 17, 2021, with the caption case Colegio de Médicos Cirujanos de Puerto Rico v. Dra. Sally Priester, Case No. Q-JLDM-2020-270. 59. Through said process, the co-defendants members of the Licensing Board— and co-defendant Ramos and other members of the Health Department — persecuted Dr. Priester because of her public expressions related to the government's Covid-related restrictions, 60. The investigative process departed from the applicable regulations of the Association and the Licensing Board. 61. On February 17, at 10:00am, an investigative hearing was held by the Licensing, Board’s investigative officer, codefendant Ramos, other members of the Association and members of the Licensing Board, including the Licensing Board's president, Freddie Romén, Veronica Rodriguez de la Cruz, and another member of the Licensing Board, Luis Molinari 62. Dr. Priester was never given the opportunity to confront the evidence or alleged. ‘witnesses that the Association presented in the investigative phase. 63, That day, Dr. Priester’s former attorney filed an appearance and moved to dismiss 13,Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 14 of 31 the investigative proceedings, arguing, among other things, that the Licensing Board lacked jurisdiction to regulate public expressions that are not given in the context of a doctor's treatment of her patients or other professional performance. 64, Then, on February 18, Dr. Priester was summoned to appear at a further investigative hearing on March 3 at 10:00 am, which Dr. Priester and her then attorney attended, as well as Codefendant Rodriguez de la Cruz and another member of the Licencing Board, Dr. Luis Molinari 65. Article 10.9 of the Licensing Board’s General Regulation (Reg. 8891) mandates that, within 90 days of the conclusion of the investigative process, the Investigating Officer shall prepare and submit a Report to the Licensing Board with findings and recommendations. However, that report could not be located in the case file before the Licensing Board. 66. On or before April 14, 2021, the co-defendant members of the Licensing Board voted in favor initiating a formal complaint proceeding against Dr. Priester and issued an overly broad and unconstitutional Cease and Desist Order (GAG order) precluding her from expressing, her opinion regarding the Government's handling of COVID 19. 67. The GAG order against Dr. Priester stated the following: Dr. Sally Morales Sepulveda, also known as Dr. Sally Priester, is ordered to CEASE AND. DESIST from maki essing, communicating, disseminatin, supporting, sharing and/or endorsing, by any means of communication or in person, messages without any legitimate scientific basis against the health efforts being carried ‘out by government or private authorities recognized and respected by the scientific and medical community to alert and protect the society with respect to the spread and propagation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the Coronavirus Pandemic and/or Covid-19, as well as any of its variants. ITISHEREBY NOTIFIED that this Resolution and Order will enter into force upon service hereof on Dr. Sally Morales Septilveda, also known as Dr. Sally Priester, at her mailing, 4Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 15 of 31 and email addresses on record with the Board, and on her legal representative, Humberto Cobo Estrella, Esq., and it will remain in force until otherwise determined by the Board. lure to comply with this Order ma vere monetal disciplinary penalties and/or even judicial contempt, Art. 28 (g) Law 139, supra. So resolved by the Puerto Rico Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline, in its regular meeting on April 14, 2021 See GAG Order, Exhibit 1 (Emphasis added.) 68. __Itis unclear which members of the Licensing Board voted in favor of issuing the GAG order and filing a formal complaint. However, the president and secretary of the Licensing Board, co-defendants Dr. Freddie Roman Avilés, and Dr. Veronica Rodriguez De La Cruz, signed the GAG Order. The legal assistant of the Board, Carmen L, Alamo Del Valle, also signed the GAG Order and approved of its notification to myriad third partie 69. Four months later, on August 12, 2021, the investigative officer, on behalf of the Licensing Board, filed a formal complaint captioned Junta de Licenciamiento y Disciplina Médica dle Puerto Rico v. Dra, Sally Morales Sepulveda, Case No. JLDM-2020-270 (Formal Complaint), which charged Dr. Priester with violating the following canons of the Code of Ethics of the medical profession. Canon 29: the doctor will have the duty of promoting through his example and statements the elevated ethical principles of integrity of character and intellectual and professional ‘honesty so that they may serve as an example for his colleagues, his family, his profession and his people; Canon 31: in his conduct, the doctor shall adhere to the ethical principles and rules incorporated in this code not only in the clinical setting but also in any other context in which he performs his role. Assuming posts or carrying out roles in the public or private sector does not relieve the doctor from complying with the ethical principles ennobling, the medical profession; Canon 32: Under the principle of civic solidarity, the doctor will have the duty to educate the population with respect to the promotion of health and the prevention of diseases. He shall contribute to improving the quality of life of the Puerto Rican people, staying 15Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 16 of 31 informed of public health conditions, and through his professional and civic actions he shall collaborate toward improvement of public healt Canon 33: The doctor shall respect the private and human rights of all members of society, especially with respect to the preservation of life, physical and mental health; Canon 38: the doctor shall exercise ethical influence in society to promote causes that foster the common good, such as: the donation of organs and tissues for transplants, the defense of measures that preserve ecological systems, clean water, and other initiatives that protect human health and biodiversity; 70. Article 10.10 of Reg. 8861 dictates that, when a Formal Complaint is initiated, it must contain an explicit relation of the pertinent facts and applicable law for each separate charge. 71, The Formal Complaint, however, contains no specific allegations showing how any of Dr, Priester’s expressions criticizing the government constitute a violation of any of the referenced canons of the Code of Ethics. 72. Upon information and belief, neither the investigative officer nor the Licensing Board conducted an independent investigation before issuing the GAG Order and recommending that a Formal Complaint be filed against Dr. Priester. Indeed, both the GAG Order and the Formal Complaint described Dr. Priester’s expressions in the exact same manner. (word for word) as the complaint letter that was sent by Defendant Ramos to the Licensing Board. Compare paragraph 68 with the GAG Order, Exhibit 1 at 2. 73. The Formal Complaint states that the Dr. Priester made the expressions on November 29, 2020, which would coincide with the event at Plaza de la Libertad in Condado, where, as noted above, several members of the Health Department attended and took notes, two days before Defendant Ramos filed the complaint-letter before the Licensing Board, 74. However, the expressions included in Defendant Ramos’s complaint letter, the 16Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 17 of 31 GAG Order, and the Formal Complaint, were made at a press conference made on November 20, 2020. 75. The Formal Complaints still pending resolution by the Board, but the GAG order is still in place. 76. Recently, Plaintiff was able to evaluate the case file before the Licensing Board and ‘was unable to find any documentary evidence or testimony including the actual expressions that Dr. Priester made. Neither the newspaper article nor the video referenced in the complaint letter was found in the case file 77. Asarresult, the Licensing Board’s decision to issue a GAG order and file a Formal Complaint and against Dr. Priester appears to have been made only after evaluating the Association’s complaint letter, signaling that no independent investigation had occurred. 78. During the February 17 investigative hearing, an attorney for the Association said that one of the reasons why Ramos decided not to follow the Association's own regulations was because he could have a conflict of interest. But it is precisely because Dr. Ramos had a conflict of interest that he should not have initiated the process without following the proper protocols. 79. _Allthe co-defendants intentionally disregarded Dr. Priester’ due process and free speech rights to advance their own beliefs, policies, ideologies and to prohibit Dr. Priester from criticizing the Government of Puerto Rico in the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. 80. The complaint letter sent by Defendant Ramos, the GAG order, and the Formal Complaint issued by the licensing board, constitute retaliation for Dr. Priester’s engaging in protected speech. 81. The GAG order has created a chilling effect not only on Dr. Priester, but also 17Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 18 of 31 among other medical doctors in Puerto Rico. 82, The members of the Licensing Board, through the GAG Order, are imposing a prior restraint on Dr. Priester’s protected speech. Further, the GAG Order restricts her ability to speak her ideas and beliefs about the Government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. 83. Any violation to the GAG Order entails the probability of additional sanctions, including but not limited to, monetary fines up to $5,000, the suspension or cancellation of Dr. Priester’s license to practice medicine in Puerto Rico, and judicial contempt. 84, In an effort to further intimidate Dr. Priester from engaging in public discourse and to inflict damages upon her, on April 22, 2021, the co-defendant members of the Licensing, Board, and Carmen L. Alamo del Valle, notified the GAG Order to the following entities: (i) Puerto Rico Hospital Association; (fi) The Office of the Insurance Commissioner of Puerto Rico; (iii) the US. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); (iv) Auxiliary Office for Regulation and Accreditation of Health Facilities (GARAFS); (v) SIMED; (vi) Triple-S Propiedad; (vii) Patients Ombudsman's Office; (vill) the Credential and Privileging Coordinator at the Department o Veteran Affairs; (ix) Triple-S Salud; (x) Mental Health and Addiction Services Administration (ASSMCA); (xi) Puerto Rico Medical Defense Insurance Company; (xii) the National Practitioner Data Bank (xiii) and the Puerto Rico Surgeons Association. 85. The publication of the GAG Order by notifying the foregoing to third parties not only undermined Dr. Priester’s reputation and professional character as a physician, but also created an enduring chilling and deterring effect for her and other physicians to express opinions contrary to the Government of Puerto Rico's interest, in violation of her due process and freedom, of speech rights. 18Case 3:22-cv-01085 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 19 of 31 86. The GAG Order is a discriminatory action against Dr. Priester for her political views regarding how the Government is handling the Covid-19 pandemic. UNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: PROTECTED FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT 87. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs. 88. Speech on public issues occupies the “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.” NAACP ». Claiborne Hardwoare Co,, 458 US. 886, 913 (1982) 89. __Asalleged by the previous paragraphs, an actual controversy exists between the parties. 90. Accordingly, Dr. Priester is entitled to declaratory judgment stating that the statements for which she is being gagged by the Association and the Licensing Board, including criticizing of the Government's stringent Covid-related restrictions, mandates, and impositions are “protected speech” under the First Amendment. COUNTIT VIOLATIONS OF FREE SPEECH AND FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION 91. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in the previous paragraphs, 92, By threatening penalties for future speech, the GAG Order constituted a prior restraint that infringes Dr. Priester's First Amendment rights. 19Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 20 of 31 98. And a prior restraint is the quintessential First Amendment violation. 94. The GAG Order, after all, deprives Plaintiffs of her right to speak or write about the ideas that she is passionate about—indeed, she is contributing to the market of ideas. 95. _Evenanerroneous statement is inevitable in free debate and must have breathing space. 96. ‘The GAG Order is chilling Dr. Priester’s potential speech before it happens, and it deters her—and other doctors that sympathize with her—from voicing their criticisms of official conduct or government actions. 97. Moreover, the GAG is worded so vaguely and reaches so broadly that Plaintiff ‘unable to speak without fear of further sanctions, and potentially losing her medical license. 98. For example, the GAG Order is so broad that it could encompass any speech related to the Covid-19 pandemic or to any of the science developments related to it. Taken literally, Dr. Priester could not be able criticize the government for implementing lockdowns, curfews, and discriminating between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals without fear of further retaliation. Neither could she publicly agree with or endorse the views of groups that disapprove the measures being implemented by the Government and the Department of Health which increasingly restrict the constitutional rights American citizens living in Puerto Rico. 99. The GAG Order and the filing of disciplinary measures due to Dr. Priester’s Protected Speech sends the message that the Puerto Rico Department of Health will not tolerate any dissidence by the medical community regarding its Covid related policies and restrictive measures, 100. The defendants, acting under color of state law (as they did), cannot employ 20Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 21 of 31 threats—like the GAG Order and related administrative proceedings—to squelch Plaintiff's free speech, 101. Indeed, even informal procedures undertaken by officials and designed to chill expression can constitute a prior restraint. 102, Moreover, acting under color of Puerto Rico law and in retaliation for Dr. Priester’s expressions regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, all co-defendants individually harmed Plaintiff, her reputation, and business. 103. The filing of the Complaint Letter, the Gag Order, and the Formal against Dr. Priester was relation for Dr. Priester’s protected speech and her participation in events organized by the group Medicos Por la Verdad. 104, First Amendment retaliation punishes speech that has already occurred, which is exactly what Defendants did by lodging the complaint letter, the Gag Order and the Formal Complaint 105. The misconduct described above was objectively unreasonable and was done with intentional disregard for Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, which prohibit abridging the freedom of speech and discriminating against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys. 106, Accordingly, Dr. Priester is also entitled to a declaratory judgment that the defendants, in their official capacities, have engaged in viewpoint discrimination, because they censored the protected conducted described in Count I—her perspective and opinion of the government's handling of the Puerto Rico pandemic. 107. The GAG Order is a prior restraint on speech and, as such, is the most serious and less tolerable infringement on Dr. Priester's First Amendment rights. 21Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 22 of 31 108. Plaintiff has suffered continuing, irreparable harm to her freedom of speech, reputation, and her business, and she has been forced to incur substantial legal fees and costs Unless restrained, codefendants will continue to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights. COUNT IM PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. 109, Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs. 110. Plaintiff has a property right over her medical license and professional career. TIL. She also has a liberty interest in not being denied employment for exercising her First Amendment rights. 112. Pertinently, procedural due process ensures that Dr. Priester is afforded reasonable notice of and an opportunity to oppose an order—like the GAG Order—that substantially restrained her First Amendment rights. 113. But the procedure that the defendants— particularly Defendant Ramos and other Medical Association Co-Defendants—engaged in to obtain the GAG Order cannot justify allowing it to remain in effect. 114. Indeed, as described above, Defendant Ramos and the Medical Association Co- Defendants violated Puerto Rico Act Act 77-1994, as amended, known as the “Puerto Rico Surgeons Association Act” and Act No. 139-2008, as amended, known as the “Medical Discipline and Licensure Board Act.” 115. The Defendant Ramos and the members of the Licensing Board adscribed to the Department of Health did not allow Plaintiff to confront the evidence or witnesses against her 22,Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 23 of 31 before issuing the GAG Order. 116. The misconduct described above shocks the consciousness and was done with intentional disregard for Plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. 117, Asa result of the misconduct described above, Plaintiff has suffered continuing, irreparable harm to her reputation, business and has been forced to incur substantial legal fees and costs. COUNTIV 42 U.S.C. § 1983: DEPRIVATION OF AND CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 118. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the previous paragraphs. 119. Asdescribed more fully above, acting under color of Puerto law and in retaliation. for Plaintiff's criticism of the Government of Puerto Rico handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, all co-defendants, individually and in agreement, have engaged in a civil conspiracy of political discrimination against Plaintiff and to harm her reputation and business, in violation of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Section 1 of Article II of the Puerto Rico Constitution. 120. _ In furtherance of the conspiracy, co-defendants have engaged in overt acts and. are and were willful participants to the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights. For instance, Defendant Ramos 121, In particular, co-defendant Ramos and co-defendants members of the Licensing, Board, and other unknown members of the Health Department, individually, acting in concert and in agreement, entered and/or are responsible for the GAG Order, and together conspired to 23Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 24 of 31 refuse to provide due process rights to Plaintiff (pre-and-post deprivation hearing), and stop her from exercising her free speech rights under the First Amendment, without following the minimum due process guarantees and the due process afforded by the pertinent statutes and regulations. 122. In addition to voting in favor of ishuing the GAG Order and facilitating its issuance and notification to third parties, co-defendant members of the Licensing Board further conspired to that same end with Defendant Ramos, who filed the complaint letter illegally on behalf of the Association before the Licensing Board that resulted in the GAG Order. 123, Asa result of the conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered continuing and irreparable harm to her reputation and businesses, and she has been forced to incur in substantial legal fees and costs. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Dr. Priester requests this Honorable Court to: 1. Declare that Dr. Priester’s speech, as described is protected by the First Amendment. 2, Declare that the Gag Order is invalid. Alternatively, declare that the Gag Order is too broad to pass constitutional muster. 3, Preliminary and permanently enjoin co-defendants from enforcing the Gag Order, or any other gag order in relation to the facts of this case. 4, Permanently enjoin co-defendants from continuing to use the color of state law to deprive Dr. Priester of her constitutional and legal rights as outlined above; 5. Declare that Defendants have violated Dr. Priester’s constitutional to free speech due process, and other federal rights; 24Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 25 of 31 6. Award Dr. Priester compensatory damages in an amount of no less than $1,000,000 against the individual capacity defendants; 7. Award Dr. Priester punitive damages; 8. Award Dr. Priester attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 9. Award Dr. Priester such other relief as is just and appropriate. Dated: January 19, 2022 Respectfully submitted, B&D LLC FirstBank Plaza | Ste. 201 1519 Ponce de Leén Ave. San Juan, PR 00909 Tel. 787-931-0941 /s/ José R. Dévila-Acevedo José R. Davila-Acevedo USDCPR No. 231511 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that to the best of my knowledge the foregoing is true and correct. Fall jester LEE OPCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 26 of 31 Exhibit No. 1 Certified Translation JF-2021-153, Page 1 of 6 |roundsesi wth GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO. owen] “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH “futons, PUERTO RICO BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND DISCIPLINE Puerto Rico Board of Medical Re: Licensure and Discipline ‘Complainant Case No. RECEIPT oF 5 Lerrer (COMPLAINT) QILDM-2020-270 | FROMTHE PuERTORICO PHYSICIANS AND Dr. Sally Morales Sepailveda Ne ‘aka Dr. Sally Priester Lie. No. 16480 Respondent RESOLUTION AND ORDER 2021-04 ‘The Puerto Rico Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline, hereinafter the “Board,” is the State's regulatory body for medical practice in Puerto Rico, and its primary responsibility is the protection of the public (Law #139-2008, as amended). WHEREAS: The Puerto Rico Physicians and Surgeons Association, hereinafter the "Association," submitted 2 letter (complaint) to this Board on December 1, 2020; WHEREAS: Said letter from the Association presents a set of alleged actions and statements by Dr. Sally Morales Sepilveda, also known as Sally Priester, in the public sphere this past Noveriber 29, 2020; WHEREAS: According to the Association's letter, said statements and conduct attributed to Dr. Sally Priester may violate the Code of Ethics governing medical professionals; WHEREAS: Article 33 (9) of Law 139, supra, authorizes the Board to investigate any evidence that appears to show that a licensed medical professional is guity of Unprofessional Conduct. WHEREAS: The Board ordered that an informal investigation be begun regarding the allegations, and it held investigative hearings on February 17 and March 3, 2021, at which the Association appeared, represented by its president, Dr. Victor Ramos, and its legal representatives; as well as Dr. Sally Priester, on her own behalf and represented by her attorney; WHEREAS: According to the Report furnished to us by the Board's investigating attorney, the parties had ample opportunity to submit their arguments and documentary and/or expert evidence. Dr. Priester also filed addtional motions requesting the dismissal ofthe complaint which is in the investigative stage; WHEREAS: The evidence obtained during the hearings held and the evidence submitted by the parties indicates that Dr. Priester made multiple public statements relating to the pandemic that she daims are protected by her constitutional right to freedom of speech and assembly, but in our opinion said statements have no rigorous scientific basis. nor do they constitute constructive criticism, norCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 27 of 31 Certified Translation JF-2021-153 Page 2 of 6 ‘can they rank higher than the efforts to protect public health and safety. The statements attributed to Dr. Priester that she argues were protected by the Constitution were: "referring to the pandemic as "PLANDemia’; “How dare they make a campaign ‘out of terror and impotence..."; "It is a lack of respect, we in the medical ‘community, and for doctors to lend themselves to this kind of thing. Ending this farce... "7 “T don't understand why medical centers such as COTS [Diagnostic and Treatment Centers] are dosed, forcing patients to receive care solely at emergency rooms. It is unbelievable to hear that they cannot contact primary care physicians. Don't let them scare you any more, because a time will come when the 14 days of incubation will NOT exist, and the Health Department is going to have to in its judgment at some point itis going to have to explain where it has gotten so much data that is not scientifically proven globally." “We don't have to wait for any vaccine..." “No child is going to be vaccinated...” WHEREAS: Said statements of Dr. Priester were disseminated by the mass media in Puerto Rico, although she maintains that the press lacked the ability to tell the truth to the People. WHEREAS: We are dealing with a Pandemic declared by the World Health Organization {as the SARS-CoV-2 virus, Coronavirus, Covid-19; which has thrown health safety into disarray globally; WHEREAS: Dr. Priester has claimed, according to the evidence, that her statements, in addition to being protected by the Constitution, and she made them [sic] in a context that 's not related to her professional practice or the treatment of her patients or providing medical advice at any hospital. She also stated that she has received multiple distinctions for her humanitarian, civic and social work, and she further stated that she has published multiple medical and scientific writings; WHEREAS: The evidence obtained indicates that the public statements reported In the Association's complaint were in fact made by Dr. Priester and said statements violate the following canons of the Code of Ethics: Canon 29, which reads: ‘the doctor will have the duty of promoting through his example and statements the elevated ethical principles of integrity of character and intellectual and professional honesty so that they may serve as an example for his colleagues, his family, his profession and his people"; Canon 31, which reads: "in his conduct, the doctor shall adhere to the ethical principles and rules incorporated in this code not only in the clinical setting but also in any other context in which he performs his role. Assuming posts or carrying out roles in the public or private sector does not relleve the doctor from complying with the ethical principles ennobling the ‘medical profession"; Canon 32, which reads: "Under the princjple of civic solidarity, the doctor will have the duty to educate the population with respect to the promotion of health and the prevention of diseases. He shall contribute to improving the quality of ifeCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 28 of 31 Certified Translation JF-2021-153 Page 3 of 6 of the Puerto Rican people, staying informed of public heatth conditions, and through his professional and civic actions he shall collaborate toward improvement of public health"; Canon 33, which reads: The doctor shall respect the private and human rights of all members of society, especialy with respect to the preservation of life, physical and mental ‘health’, and Canon 38, which reads: “the doctor shall exercise ethical influence in society to promote causes that foster the common good, such as: the donation of organs and ‘tissues for transplants, the defense of measures that preserve ecological systems, clean water, and other intiatives that protect human health and biodiversity”; WHEREAS: Dr. Lemuel Martinez, infectious disease specialist; Dr. Luis Nieves Garrastegui, respiratory medicine specialist, and Dr. Carmen Zorrilla, professor at the Campus of Medical Sciences, researcher and expert in the development of vaccines, testified as expert witnesses for the Association and they concurred that: (1) the pandemic exists; itis correct to use a face mask; (2) many doctors and health personne! that provide care to patients with Covid-19 have died, even when taking safety measures; (3) every doctor has to know when they are talking outside of their area of "expertise" and to avoid leading the people who are listening to them into error. WHEREAS: After a lengthy discussion at our regular meeting, held on April 14, 2021, the Board agreed to begin a formal complaint proceeding against Or. Priester and also ordered 2 Cease and Desist against her because they found that there is evidence that supports the likelihood of Unprofessional Conduct, WHEREFORE: After review of the Report from the Investigating Attorney, A FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCEEDING IS ORDERED TO BE INITIATED AGAINST DR. SALLY MORALES SEPULVEDA, ALSO KNOWN AS DR. SALLY PRIESTER. The Reviewing Officer is ordered to consider the motions to dismiss fled by Dr. Sally Priester in the formal complaint proceeding. WHEREFORE: Given the danger to public health and to protect the public from the danger represented by the Pandemic and not adhering to the prevention and care guidelines that must be taken on behalf of the population, Dr. Sally Morales Sepiilveda, also known as Dr. Sally Priester, is ordered to CEASE AND DESIST from making, expressing, communicating, disseminating, publishing, supporting, sharing and/or endorsing, by any means of communication or in person, messages without any legitimate scientific basis against the health efforts being carried out by government or private authorities recognized and respected by the scientific and medical community to alert and protect the society with respect to the spread and propagation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the Coronavir and/or Covid-19, as well as any of its variants. IT IS HEREBY NOTIFIED that this Resolution and Order will enter into force upon ser hereof on Dr. Sally Morales Sepilveda, also known as is PandemicCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 29 of 31 Certified Translation JF-2021-153 Page 4 of 6 Dr. Sally Priester, at her mailing and email addresses on record with the Board, and on her legal representative, Humberto Cobo Estrella, Esq., and it will remain in force until otherwise determined by the Board, Failure to comply with this Order may entail severe monetary and di penalties and/or even judicial contempt, Art. 28 (g) Law 139, supra. So resolved by the Puerto Rico Board of Medical Licensure and Disci regular meeting on April 14, 2021. inary ine, in its NOTICES The party against whom this determination is issued, after exhaustion of the ‘administrative remedies before the Board, may file a petition for judicial review of this decision with the Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico, within a period of thirty (30) days counted from the date on which the copy of the notice of this Resolution is filed in the case record, Said petition for judicial review must be served on the Board and all the parties involved in this case, within the allotted period to request said proceeding. The thirty (30)-day period to seek judicial review may be tolled by the timely fling of a motion for reconsideration before this Board, within a period of twenty (20) days, ‘counted from the date on which the copy of the notice ofthis Resolution is filed In the case record. If a motion for reconsideration Is filed against this Resolution, the Board must consider it within fifteen (15) days of the date itis fled. If such motion is summarily denied, or if the Board fails to act within the aforementioned fiftzen (15) days, the thirty (30)-day period to request judicial review will begin to be counted again from the date of notification Of said denial, or from the date of expiration of the those fifteen (15) days, as the case ‘may be. If the Board makes a determination in reconsideration, the thirty (30)-day period to request judicial review will begin to be counted from the date on which a copy of the Notice of the Board's resolution conclusively adjudicating the motion for reconsideration is filed in the case record. Such resolution must be issued and filed in the case record within ninety (90) days after the filing of the motion for reconsideration. If the Board allows the motion for reconsideration but fails to take any action with relation to this motion within ninety (90) days of is fling, it will ose jurisdiction over same and the thity (30)-day period to request judicial review will begin to be counted as of the date of expiration of said (90) day period, except where the Board, for good cause and within those ninety (90) days, extends the period to issue a resolution for a period not to exceed thirty (30) additional days. If no action is taken to request reconsideration or judicial review of this decision within the aforementioned periods, this Resolution will become final, conclusive and tunappealable thirty (30) days after the date on which a copy of the notice of this Resolution is flled in the case record. So resolved by the Puerto Rico Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in its regular meeting on April 14, 2021. ORDERED TO BE ENTERED AND NOTIFIED. FOR THE PUERTO RICO BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND DISCIPLINE [Signature] [Signature] DR. FREDDIE ROMAN AVILES DR. VERONICA RODRIGUEZ DE LA CRUZ PRESIDENT SECRETARYCase 3:22-cv-01035 Document1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 30 of 31 Certified Translation JF-2021-153 Page 5 of 6 I CERTIFY: That today, April 22, 2021, I filed @ copy ofthis Resolution in the case record ‘and I have served same on DR. SALLY MORALES SEPULVEDA, also known as SALLY PRIESTER, by registered mail number 70190700000061751194 to her address of record at P.O Box 16106, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00908; email spriester@amail.com; this resolution is also served on her legal representative, HUMBERTO COBO ESTRELLA, ESQ,, registered mail number 70190700000061751316 to his mailing address, P.O. BOX 366451, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00936 and email hobo@hcounsel.com. On the PUERTO RICO PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS ASSOCIATION, DR. VICTOR RAMOS at the following address: P.0, BOX 70169, SAN JUAN, PR 00836 registered mail number 70190700000061751323 and at the email address info@coleaiomedicopr.or. Additionally, @ copy of this Resolution will be served on the following institutions: by Roos, commissioner of Prt ico seca mies “aie Taenuey = ‘watieaeaes ca ‘oy Oe or Regain and hewedation ‘soe Tia Pos (RAPS) ono) SSouanumetiaeeany Tomer PanonOnmicoarsowic | Ofc af tnvenigatone | Tie Stee ‘tr ae Se | cdots Duce sana PIO. 297 bet sins nisesasuatarecon Bisienacen | rnc sense ‘coraner smi | ret ean srr ‘wacom en San (som gmeteconeieseestencm pees son PRE ‘ena Meares esi nweracttomeestny | “gnats sshce ‘etre Deon arse communes ‘hares Conary semnsiinacon [Signature] Carmen L. Alamo Del Valle Legal Asistant|Case 3:22-cv-01035 Document 1 Filed 01/19/22 Page 31 of 31 Certified Translation JF-2021-153 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATOR # JF-2021-153 1am a United States court-certified interpreter, and | CERTIFY that the above is a faithful translation of the Spanish source, which | have performed to the best of my ablity, It consists of six (6) pages, including this certification sheet, and contains no changes or erasures. The content of this translation is Resolution and Order 2021-04 [Re: Receipt of Letter (Complaint) from the Puerto Rico Physicians and Surgeons Association in Case No. Q-JLDM-2020-270 before the Puerto Rico Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, on October 3, 2021. doom ot Joaquin Font Font Translations Calle Calaf 400, Suite 268, San Juan, PR 00918 Toll-Free Tel. & Fax: 1-877-JOAQUIN (562-7846) il: fonttranslations@gmail.comCase 3:22-cv-01035-SCC Document 3-1 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 8 AO 440 (Rov 06/12) Summons in Civil Acton UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT forthe District of Puerto Rico = SALLY PRIESTER, MD Plaintiis) PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: VICTOR RAMOS; DR. FREDDIE ROMAN AVILES; DR. VERONICA RODRIGUEZ DE LA CRUZ Civil Action No. 22-ev-1035(SCC) Defendants) SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant's name and address) Victor Ramos 1054 Ave. Mufioz Rivera Esq. Tulane San Juan, PR 00927 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a}(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are: 5.4m Davita Acevedo 4519 Ponce de Len Ave. Ste. 501 Sen Juan PR 00909 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. MARIA ANTONGIORGI-JORDAN, ESQ. CLERK OF COURT Digital signed by Antonio Rodriguer-Gorzalez Date: 2022.01 20093526 Date; 01/20/2022 Se ico! ‘Signature of Clerk or Deputy ClerkCase 3:22-cv-01035-SCC Document 3-1 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 8 AO 440 (Rev 6!12) Surmmons ina Civil Action (Page 2) Civil Action No. 22-cv-1035(SCC) PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P.4()) ‘This summons for (ame of individual and tte, yanyy Sap. Wichee Ramos wa by me on date vy Lt 8 received by me on fae) Celine 4 Tete _D personally served the summons on the individual at piace) Ql\y jis & Neko ) Cine: NO Qve. Mane Cuvee to SE Ukb on (date) OY_ OB —VT_io% eft the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name) + A.person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on date) + and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or 1 I served the summons on (name of individual) who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of name of organisation) (on (date) sor 5 Lretumed the summons unexecuted because sor 8 Other (pecii My fees are $ for travel and § for services, for a total of $ 0.00 declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true, ate: Ceboeny B, Uwe Server's signature Cater Te Nader Qrcet Cour Printed name and tile Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, ete: