ANTONIO RAMOS CRUZ v. DOMINGO EMANUELLI HERNÁNDEZ LORRAINE MARTÍNEZ ADORNO (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is petitioner Antonio Ramos-Cruz (“Ramos”)’s motion to strike respondents Emanuelli-Hernández (“Emanuelli”) and Lorraine Martínez-Adorno (“Martínez”) (collectively, “respondents”)’s amended answer. (Docket No. 159.) For the reasons set forth below, Ramos’ motion to strike is HELD IN ABEYANCE.

I. The Commencement of this Action

On October 27, 2020, Ramos filed a petition pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEPDA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“section 2254”). (Docket No. 1.) The Court subsequently denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss, ordering that they answer Ramos’ amended petition no later than October 31, 2022. Ramos-Cruz v. Carrau-Martínez, Case No. 20-1589, 627 F. Supp. 3d 114, 132 (D.P.R. 2022) (Besosa, J.). The respondents answered the amended petition on October 24, 2022, but failed to comply with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Docket No. 70; see 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rule 5 provides that an answer must contain a copy of:

(1) any brief that the petitioner submitted in an appellate court contesting the conviction or sentence, or contesting an adverse judgment or order in a post-conviction proceeding;

(2) any brief that the prosecution submitted in an appellate court relating to the conviction or the sentence; and

(3) the opinions and dispositive orders of the appellate court relating to the conviction or the sentence.

Rule 5(d); Lee v. Corsini, 777 F.3d 46, 61 n.9 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that the respondent “substantially complied with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases by filing the state court docket sheets, court documents, and prior decisions with his supplemental answer”).

The respondents’ “answer” consisted of a 23-page pleading, omitting the required transcripts and briefs from the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, Carolina Division, Pueblo de P.R. v. Ramos-Cruz, Case No. KLCE201701397 (the 1992 trial), and the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, El Pueblo de P.R. v. Cruz, Case No. KLCE201701397, 2019 WL 2232528 (P.R. Cir. Mar. 13, 2019) (the Rule 192.1 hearing).

Ramos moved to strike the answer, citing the respondents’ failure to “[attach] the requisite state court record.” (Docket No. 71 at p. 1.).¹ The Director of Federal Litigation for the PR DOJ responded, asserting that she “personally handed Petitioner's counsel a CD that contained the totality of the state court record, organized in the same fashion as the State Courts produced them.” (Docket No. 76 at p. 3.) The Jones Act mandates, however, that all “pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language.” 48 U.S.C. § 864; Local Civil R. 5(c) (“All documents not in the English language which are presented or filed, whether as evidence or otherwise, must be accompanied by a certified translation into English.”). This Court cannot “consider any untranslated documents placed before [it].” United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57, 64 (1st Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the respondents shoulder the burden of submitting certified English translations of the relevant transcripts. See Atiles-Gabriel v. Commonwealth, 256 F. Supp. 3d 122, 127-28 (D.P.R. 2019) (Gelpí, J.) (ordering the Puerto Rico Department of Justice to submit certified English translations of trial transcripts in a section 2254 proceeding, noting that “the cost of translation cannot compare [․] to the fundamental liberty interest – freedom from unlawful restraint – protected by the writ of habeas corpus and the Constitution.”).

II. The Amended Answer

On January 20, 2023, the respondents filed an amended answer, requesting a month to submit certified translations of the state court record. (Docket No. 86 at p. 2.) Ramos moved to strike the amended answer. (Docket No. 102.) He asserted that the respondents continued to violate Rule 5 by “[withholding] the two most critical record documents: the transcript of Mr. Ramos’ 1992 jury trial and the transcript of the [Rule 192.1] evidentiary hearing on his motion for a new trial.” Id. at p. 2. The Court granted this motion, ordering that “[all] transcripts of all proceedings in Commonwealth Court pertaining to defendant Ramos-Cruz and all translations shall be provided to the petitioner's counsel no later than February 28, 2023.” (Docket No. 104) (emphasis in original). This order is clear, concise, and unambiguous. Incredibly, a month later the respondents alleged that: “The Court did not order Respondents to file additional transcripts with the Court, either from the trial or from the Rule 192.1 evidentiary hearing, as Rule 5(c) empowers it to do.” (Docket No. 121 at p. 4.) Certainly, the Court's reference to “all proceedings in Commonwealth Court pertaining to defendant Ramos-Cruz” encompassed the 1992 trial and Rule 192.1 evidentiary hearing. A plain reading of the Court's order conveys the respondents’ duty to translate the transcripts associated with these specific proceedings.

The respondents moved for reconsideration, arguing that their copy of the trial transcripts contained written notations by attorneys previously assigned to this case, and that Ramos has “no substantial need” for these documents. (Docket No. 109.) The Court denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration, ordering that they file certified English translations of the 1992 trial no later than July 31, 2023. Ramos-Cruz v. Emanuelli-Hernández, 677 F. Supp. 3d. 47, 55 (D.P.R. 2023) (Besosa, J.). The opening statements, presentation of evidence, closings, and jury deliberations occurred on the following dates:

1. Tuesday, February 11, 1992

2. Wednesday, February 12, 1992

3. Thursday, February 13, 1993

4. Friday, February 14, 1992

5. Monday, February 17, 1992

6. Tuesday, February 18, 1992

7. Wednesday, February 19, 1992

8. Thursday, February 20, 1992

9. Friday, February 21, 1992

10. Saturday, February 22, 1992

Id. The respondents filed the 1992 trial transcripts on July 31, 2023, but not the corresponding English translations. (Docket No. 126 at p. 2.) According to the respondents, the “volume of the transcript[s]” and the cost of translation prohibited the PR DOJ from complying with Rule 5 and the Jones Act. Id. The respondents’ “budget [did] not provide for this extraordinary expense and, therefore, the Department [was] looking for external funding alternatives, including federal grants.” Id.

Because the respondents “[could] not predict when the translations [would] be filed, because this case has been on the Court's docket since 2020, and because the respondents have been lax to provide the transcripts they must by law provide,” the Court ordered Ramos to state whether he “should be released from detention.” (Docket No. 127.) On this same day, Ramos requested release pending resolution of his section 2254 petition. (Docket No. 128.) The Court set a Show Cause Hearing for August 25, 2023 to assess the parties’ proposed conditions of release. (Docket Nos. 135 and 138.)

III. The Second Amended Answer

The respondents filed a second amended answer on August 15, 2024. (Docket No. 137.) They did not, however, provide the requisite English translations. Ramos moved to strike the second amended answer, citing the respondents’ chronic failure to “tender the trial and post-conviction records.” (Docket No. 159 at p. 1.)

At the Show Cause hearing, the respondents informed the Court that the PR DOJ “identified the funds to pay for the translations of the remaining transcripts.” (Docket No. 153 at p. 4.) The Court then ordered the respondents to “provide the translation of the 10-day trial and shall include the opening statements and closing arguments,” and the immediate release of Ramos from detention, subject to the “conditions originally imposed by Judge Berthaida Seijo.” (Docket No. 148) (emphasis added).²

The respondents filed the certified English translations of the 1992 trial on November 17, 2023. (Docket No. 186.) These translations do not, however, contain the opening statements. Id. Ramos also contends that “certain proceedings ․ were not transcribed,” but does not identify these documents or the appurtenant hearings.³

The respondents have repeatedly violated the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, resulting in protracted and unnecessary litigation. The PR DOJ faults this Court with “regard[ing] Puerto Rico as any other jurisdiction whose state court proceedings are conducted exclusively in English and no transcription translation is necessary.” Brief for Respondents at 8, Ramos-Cruz v. Martínez-Adorno, Case No. 23-1725 (1st Cir. Sept. 15, 2023). This Court granted the respondents’ repeated requests for leave to file English translations, however, affording the PR DOJ with ample time to comply with Rule 5. (Docket Nos. 91 and 118.) Lack of funds is not a carte blanche for the PR DOJ to disregard the federal statute which mandates that all proceedings in this Court be conducted in English, 48 U.S.C. § 864, or Local Civil R. 5(c), which requires that all documents presented in this Court be accompanied by a certified English translation.

The respondents also feign ignorance of Rule 5, contending that “on February 13, 2023, the district court ordered for the first time that all transcripts of all proceedings in Commonwealth Court pertaining to defendant Ramos-Cruz and all translations shall be provided to petitioner's counsel.” Id. at 9. The respondents are represented by seasoned attorneys, familiar with federal law and capable of researching the applicable statutes. The Rule 5 requirement to submit the state court record, the Jones Act, and Local Rule 5 are not new developments. Indeed, the 2021 letter from Ramos referred explicitly to the “translation of the entire trial and post-conviction record.” (Docket No. 71, Ex. 2 at p. 4.) Unlike the respondents, Ramos anticipated the need to translate the 1992 trial transcripts and placed the respondents on notice.

For the reasons set forth above, Ramos’ motion to strike the respondents’ second amended answer is HELD IN ABEYANCE. (Docket No. 159.) The respondents SHALL file the certified English translations of the state court trial opening statements no later than May 31, 2024. Ramos SHALL submit a brief setting forth legal arguments in favor of his section 2254 petition no later than June 14, 2024. The respondents may file a response no later than June 28, 2024. Ramos may file a reply no later than July 5, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 17, 2024.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ramos attempted to obtain the state-court records at the inception of this case and without judicial intervention. In a June 7, 2021 letter, Ramos requested that the Puerto Rico Department of Justice (“PR DOJ”) “expedite production and translation of the entire trial and post-conviction record.” (Docket No. 71, Ex. 2 at p. 4.) In fact, Ramos provided the PR DOJ with the pertinent Case Numbers: FVI191G0090-92, FVI1991G0093-95, FLA1991G0484, KLCE201701397, KLC201701398, KLCE20170139, CR-93-43, CR-93-44, CC-19-0413. Id. The PR DOJ responded, denying Ramos’ request to expedite translation of the state-court record, declaring its intention to “litigate this matter according to the applicable laws.” (Docket No. 71, Ex. 4 at p. 2.)

2.   The respondents filed a notice of appeal, contending that the Court “abused its discretion in granting Ramos-Cruz's request for release, with conditions, pending the resolution on the merits of his [Section 2254 petition].” Brief for Respondents at 3, Ramos-Cruz v. Martínez-Adorno, Case No. 23-1725 (1st Cir. Sept. 15, 2023). The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the respondents’ appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Judgment, Ramos-Cruz v. Martínez-Adorno, Case No. 23-1725 (1st Cir. Nov. 7, 2023).

3.   The respondents provided certified English translations of the Rule 192.1 hearings. (Docket Nos. 166 and 199.)

FRANCISCO A. BESOSA SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE