Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ASOCIACIÓN PUERTORRIQUEÑA DE CASE NO: 10-1409 (JP)

PROFESORES UNIVERSITARIOS DEL
RECINTO DE RÍO PIEDRAS, represented
through its member and PRESIDENT DR. RE: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
YOLANDA RIVERA CASTILLO; CIVIL RIGHTS

Plaintiffs

v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JOSE FIGUEROA-SANCHA, in his personal

capacity and acting in his official capacity as
Police Superintendent; LEOVIGILDO
VAZQUEZ, acting his personal capacity and
acting in his official capacity; JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE, defendants of unknown name
who have participated in concert with the
defendants.

Defendants

SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW COMES, Plaintiffs ASOCIACIÓN PUERTORRIQUEÑA DE PROFESORES

UNIVERSITARIOS DEL RECINTO DE RIO PIEDRAS (hereinafter APPU) and its local Chair

and member Dr. Yolanda Rivera Castillo, through its undersigned attorneys 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

l983, the Court has jurisdiction of this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections l33l and

l343(a)(3) and (4).

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 220l and 2202 this Court has jurisdiction to

declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief found necessary and proper.
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 2 of 18
  2  

3. Plaintiff, APPU, is a faculty association of the University of Puerto Rico, Rio

Piedras Campus, composed of faculty of that university campus and its schools. Above all, they

are devoted scholars and teachers of excellent university students. They teach in their classes

and they teach outside their classes. The primary recipient of their speech, outside the faculty

circle, even when they are not in their official functions with the university, are working and

middle-class university and high school students.1

4. Dr. Yolanda Rivera Castillo is a theoretical linguist and full Professor of English

of the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras. She is a resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico and

enjoys the protections afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

of America. Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 469, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1, 99 S. Ct. 2425 (1979)

(citing Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 314, 66 L. Ed. 627, 42 S. Ct. 343 (1922)).

5. The plaintiffs have intended to exercise their right and freedom to politically

express their views and support to students of the University of Puerto Rico.

6. Among its mission, the APPU has decided to ratify a University policy to

maintain the campus free of violence. Prior chancellors adopted the University Policy. It aims to

prevent violent campus confrontations between member of the campus community during labor

and student conflicts. Its goal is to prevent using force to resolve campus disputes. That policy

is known as the Campus non Confrontation Policy, an internal UPR-Rio Piedras regulation.

7. The APPU also has among is its mission objectives to support the majority

decisions of the students in their assemblies and not to cross student picket lines when students

call a strike.

8. The APPU, just as James Madison conceived two centuries ago, also has amongst

                                                                                                               
1   “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man,
public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, I am a
mischievous person.” Socrates, Apology, 30a-b

  2  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 3 of 18
  3  

its objectives the respect for the freedom of speech and assembly on campus as well as the rights

of all citizens to present their grievances to campus authorities.

9. The APPU has no history of violence nor has been violent in any of its public

demonstrations and the defendants have no evidence to reasonably believe that they will be

violent.

10. The APPU is also committed to a free and affordable public education for

University students.

11. The APPU has also among its mission the preservation of fringe benefits for its

own members, including the right of APPU member’s children to receive tuition free waivers.

12. 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 Fortuño Burset, governor of Puerto Rico, who in turn also has named the majority of

the Members of the University of Puerto Rico’s Board of Trustees.

13. On April 21, 2010 a student assembly at the University of Puerto Rico declared a

strike on campus protesting, inter alia, the elimination of the tuition fee waivers of honor

students, of students with special skills and athletes, as well as the elimination of other student

benefits, including the elimination of tuition fee waivers for the children of APPU’s members.

14. The APPU and its membership gave its full moral support to the student strike

and decided not to cross picket lines. The APPU has not had the need to cross picket lines

because at all times the University Administration has either declared an administrative shut

down or, when the University has opened, the APPU has been prevented from entering campus

by the Defendant’s riot squad, who blocks the gates entering the University.

15. On April 22, 2010, given that nobody appeared on campus to study or work,

  3  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 4 of 18
  4  

except Acting Chancellor Ana Guadalupe, the administration declared an indefinite

administrative recess.

16. On May 13, 2010, the University administration, including the UPR’s board of

trustees, a majority of which were named by Governor Fortuño Burset, decided to promote and

sponsor a second student assembly, to be held off campus, where students were going to decide,

inter alia, if they wanted either to continue the student strike, or put an end to it.

17. The University President, José Ramón de la Torre, supported by other high

ranking Commonwealth officials working for the Hon. Luis Fortuño, assumed that students

would vote to end the strike, because they felt that a so called “silent majority” would vote in

favor of terminating the strike. U.P.R. officials expected that result because they had threatened

students that if the strike was not lifted, they would lose their semester, as Governor Fortuño

Burset had also warned in a televised speech. As a result, the University President, De la Torre,

admitted that had had no “Plan B” if the students voted to continue the strike.

18. To the surprise of UPR officials, students overwhelmingly voted to continue with

the strike, while continuing negotiations with the University. As a result, University officials,

with the assessment of Marcos Rodriguez Emma, the governor’s chief of staff, hatched a plan to

shut down operations on campus for a period less than 30 days, and starve the students who were

peacefully camped out inside the campus..

19. As part 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.”

20. The letter to the Campus community does not order persons already inside the

campus to be evicted or to leave campus. The letter does not prohibit the delivery of food,

medicine, clothing or water to persons already inside the campus. The letter does not request a

  4  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 5 of 18
  5  

shutting off water and electricity to the campus.

21. On May 14, co-defendant Jose Figueroa-Sancha met with the Chancellor, other

defendants of unknown name, and approved an unconstitutional scheme, whereby without

charging or arresting the students who remained on campus of any crime, and without any order

of eviction the students who were camped in public lawns and streets on campus, would be

encouraged to abandon the campus by prohibiting, with a mile long police cordon outside the

campus, free speech on the streets surrounding the campus and depriving those inside of food

and basic needs, along with the moral support stemming from that free speech 2

22. At the same, under defendants plan, students would be isolated from their

supporters off-campus by prohibiting acts of free expression in public streets in support of the

students through donations as expenditures of food, water, and other support that easily flows

through the permeable gates of the campus.

23. On May 14, 2010, Police Col. Miguel Mejías, told reporters that he had orders

from defendant Figueroa-Sancha not to allow food to enter the campus.

24. Thus the Defendants, in order to convince students of what the University

authorities and the Governor failed to do, would now attempt to create a Berlin Wall around the

Río Piedras campus, and act as if they were Romans laying siege on Masada or Numantia,

25. 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 if they allow

food and water inside “on the go”.

26. The police, acting under defendants’ authority threatened and indeed arrested

persons attempting to deliver food into the campus.

                                                                                                               
2  "Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom."-
Benjamin N. Cardozo.

  5  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 6 of 18
  6  

27. Defendant Leovigildo Vázquez stated on May 16, 2010, stated that he had orders,

not only to prohibit persons from entering campus, but also had orders to prevent the delivery of

food and water to those inside the campus.

28. From information and/or belief, as reported in the press, such orders to deprive

students from food came from the Police Superintendent Figueroa-Sancha and from 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.

29. As of May 16, 2010, until this day, those students remaining in side campus have

never been ordered to evacuate campus, have not been charged with any crime, and are therefore

lawfully remaining on campus premises.

30. However, Police acting under the orders of the defendants, have treated the

students, workers, and APPU members as criminals that should be subjected to siege warfare,

not unlike those who suffered during tragedy of the siege performed on of the Branch Dividians,

in Waco, state of Texas, back in 1993.

31. The APPU decided on May 15, 2010, to continue with its peaceful support to the

students inside the campus by setting up tents on the sidewalk surrounding the campus and by

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.

32. The sidewalk surrounding the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras is a Public

Forum.

33. The APPU has also decided to express its support the students by donating food,

water, cooking and camping equipment, medicine, and all kinds of goods to the students, without

entering the campus, but delivering it to them through the campus fence. The APPU members

exercise their free speech rights, in support of students and in support of their own right to

  6  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 7 of 18
  7  

protest the decision by board of trustee’s eliminating tuition free waivers to the children of

APPU members, and provide those inside with goods and money, in the very same way that

corporate persons donate money to politicians to run for office in the exercise of their free

speech.

34. 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 an expenditures of all kinds of goods to the students protesting inside the campus.

35. On May 16, 2010, parents and APPU supporters and members, were participating

in an APPU-sponsored activity. The activity was located in the Ave. Gándara, in the east (south)

gate of the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras campus, where the “Calle Sur” enters the

University through the School of Education.

36. 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.

37. 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

Ex. 1.

38. 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.

39. Captain Vázquez then ordered other officers to remove the tents without the

  7  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 8 of 18
  8  

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 and sweeping restriction of free speech to APPU members.3

40. However, with no need to restrict speech, Captain Vazquez then came back and

ordered the APPU members 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.

41. Subsequently that same May 16, 2020, Lieutenant Rivera-Sevilla was asked by

plaintiff if she could put the tent back on the sidewalk next to the closed gate, and he stated that

she was forbidden from doing that because Vázquez had given orders to remove the tent. On

information and/or belief those orders were given by defendant Leovigildo Vázquez or defendant

Figueroa-Sancha.

42. The police captain and other fellow officers at his command removed the tent and

placed it on the other side of the street.

43. 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 from defendant Vázquez.

44. Prior to the events of May 16, 2020, on May 14, 2010, APPU’s Río Piedras

chapter chair, Dr. Yolanda Rivera, along with other members of the organization attempted to

deliver food and water to students, and were at once viciously assaulted by police officers and by

police “cadets” recently recruited by the Fortuño administration who prevented them from

                                                                                                               
3  "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act
that could most easily defeat us." - Justice William O. Douglas

  8  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 9 of 18
  9  

delivering the food and the water to the public that was awaiting the donation on the other side of

the campus fence.

45. As a result of the assault on APPU members and of the order to APPU members

to vacate the sidewalk, APPU members cannot speak to the students inside the campus nor give

them donations and expenditures, and therefore have effectively destroyed the APPU’s

demonstration and have prevented it from demonstrating effectively by severing its speech from

that of students inside campus, and preventing the APPU and its members from distributing all

kinds of donations and expenditures of goods to the persons inside the campus.

46. Also, the APPU has been prevented from promoting speech to those outside

campus. On the same morning of May 16, 2020, APPU, its supporters, which included 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 “cadets” in seemingly

army-colored green suits. The cadets stated that they had orders not to permit food to be given to

the students inside the University.

47. As a result of the order, and of the police officers acting under defendants’ orders,

the APPU and its members cannot express themselves by donating food, medicine and water,

and other goods, including money, to the lawful citizens that remain inside the campus since, if

they do, they are threatened with arrest, or have been actually pushed and touched by officers,

thus being assaulted by persons who under color of state law are committing battery against

APPU members who attempt to exercise their right to speak and express themselves.

48. As a result of the preceding facts the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights were violated because it was unable to have a successful protest and unable to pass out

donations and expenditures, and engage in other acts of expression as a result of the creation of

the police cordon and its eviction from the sidewalk, thus preventing the APPU from being

  9  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 10 of 18
  10  

effectively heard by the students, and by the general public as well.

49. The defendants both directed their subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that

their subordinates would act unlawfully and stopped them from doing so. Defendants orders to

create such cordons to absolutely prevent the APPU from exercising its speech to those inside

campus, including its right to donate monies, food and other goods to those inside effectively has

curtailed the right of the APPU to express itself to the students inside.

50. There is no justification from preventing the APPU from communicating their

expression to those inside the university

51. The defendants have ordered their officers to form a cordon completely around

the University and allow nobody to enter that cordon, except that they selectively allow some

persons other than APPU members to approach the gates at times.

52. APPU and its members are also being subjected to viewpoint discrimination by

Defendants who do not want the APPU to express themselves in favor the students inside the

campus by giving them food, water and medical supplies and many other donations and

expenditures, including camping equipment, stoves and other materials, thus exercising the

APPU’s members Federally-guaranteed rights to free speech.

53. The mere presence of large numbers of persons inside and outside the campus is

not indicative of any level of danger such that it impedes the APPU’s right to express itself or to

pass out food, medicine and other goods to the persons inside the campus.4 The Constitution

contains no exceptions to allow speech because there are for the large or small gatherings of

people.

54. The APPU and its members have a constitutional right to engage in peaceful

protests on public land such as a sidewalk, especially where that speech does not interfere with a

  10  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 11 of 18
  11  

closed campus.

55. Contrary to the APPU, other persons are being allowed not only to give food but

also to enter campus with the tacit tolerance and knowledge of the Police, including certain

“security” personnel that want to enter campus to harass students and “convince” them to

“voluntarily” leave the campus.

56. 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 speech in a timely manner,

given that its primary audience, the students, have been cordoned off by the Police, result in the

inability for the APPU express itself entirely with respect to its main audience.

57. 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.

58. In denying or refusing a permit to Plaintiff to access to the sidewalk immediately

across from the University 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 and Fourteenth Amendment and for which remedies are

provided by 42 U.S.C. § l983.

59. The right of the APPU to voice political protest in quintessential public fora, such

as a public sidewalk, is a fundamental right.

60. The defendants through their act have prevented protests and unduly burdened the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
4   "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and

  11  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 12 of 18
  12  

rights of APPU protestors by forcing their members now to undergo excessive searches that

violate the First and Fourth Amendments, prior to allowing their expression.

61. The APPU’s protests have been rendered ineffective by defendants broad sweep

in cordoning off the APPU’s members from the University and the persons present there. Such

cordoning off from the APPU’s potential public, in a campus that is closed for work, is not a

restriction that has been narrowly tailored.

62. The APPU’s right to be heard inside the campus has been trampled upon by the

defendants while they were acting under color of state law. Because of defendants' actions, the

APPU has been wholly cut off from its intended audience: the UPR students on strike.

63. While police may properly limit APPU’s speech for the safety and protection of

protestors and the community, it must not duly infringe in the protected freedom under the

circumstances of this case.

64. A mere potential for violence does not justify a mile-long cordon which

completely impedes expression with the APPU’s students nor can the defendants justify that

their actions in the design and implementation of the campus-wide siege, was not narrowly

tailored.

65. The extreme nature of the police cordon, completely encircling the campus, and

its resulting absolute restrictions on non-censored speech, including absolute restrictions on

donating anything to those inside, including food, as established by the defendants, violated the

APPU members’ constitutional rights.

66. After the APPU filed the current action and after the APPU sent notice to the

defendants of its claim, the defendants decided to shift gears, in an attempt to moot this case and

avoid a finding of liability for their willful violations of APPU’s constitutional rights, by setting

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
burned women. It is the function of free speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." -- Justice Louis D.
Brandeis  

  12  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 13 of 18
  13  

up a new policy, whereby APPU’s speech activities, related to donations were only to take place

on remote gates of the campus with prior censorship on what is to be allowed as donation.

67. However, the defendant’s new policy was announced on May 18, 2010, and

through a letter backdated to May 17, 2010. The new policy limits the APPU’s speech only to

donations of categories of items of basic necessities. No other item may be “donated” and all

donations must be given to persons acting under color of state law, and under the direction of

defendants, who control what is and what is not to be donated, as a prior restraint on speech.

68. Furthermore, the new policy sets up an absolute ban of First and Fourteenth

Amendments rights.

69. Furthermore, under the new the donations are to take place at two specific gates,

at very limited hours, and where student presence is limited and where the police cordon is

greater.

70. The defendants, in effect have turned the campus into a prison, where First

Amendment rights of outsiders to donate to prisoners are severely limited, and the persons within

the University are treated as prisoners, without any due process of law.

71. In depriving the APPU access to practice speech on all sidewalks to the

University, Defendants have attempted and continue to attempt to place conditions on the

APPU’s exercise of First Amendment rights.

72. By giving plaintiffs the option of leaving the sidewalk and protesting immediately

outside the campus boundary, the defendants are engaging in a form of prior restraint of speech.

73. By giving plaintiffs the option of donating and limited times, limited kinds of

good under using vague criteria to be determined by the defendants, the defendants are engaging

in a form of prior restraint.

74. The new post-complaint protocol adopted by the defendants on May 18, 2010, is

  13  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 14 of 18
  14  

not narrowly and precisely drawn, but rather leaves up to defendants what is a “basic necessity

item” and what donation represents a “security risk”. the lodging of such broad discretion in a

public official allows him to determine which expressions of view will be permitted and which

will not. This thus sanctions a device for the suppression of the communication of ideas and

permits the official to act as a censor.

75. Prior to the new restrictions, the APPU was compelled to retain attorneys because

of those absolute and broad restrictions violating constitutional rights.

76. Defendants have effectively created a barrier to APPU’s speech, so great that

effectively denuded the faculty members of APPU from communicating to their students, who

remain on campus.

77. The defendants have not given plaintiff’s first amendment rights a meaningful

space to survive.

78. The current “protocol” is nothing more than an ad hoc and subjective

determination made by diverse officials that some group or individual protestor is disrupting

normal government business. The danger in permitting such a practice is amply demonstrated by

the case at bar, where it is invoked that the purpose of such regulation is the prevention of

demonstrations that "disrupt" normal government business. That “disruption” is to take place in

a University that the state itself has closed for 30 days and one cannot disrupt the broad

prohibitions what is already disrupted by the State itself.

79. The APPU and Dr. Rivera Castillo have an intention to engage in a course of

conduct affected with a constitutional interest, that is to express herself on the sidewalk

immediately adjacent to campus and to donate goods to the students inside the campus, but such

activity is proscribed by defendant’s new protocols and prior orders, and there exists a credible

threat of prosecution against her and members of the organization as expressed by several

  14  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 15 of 18
  15  

officers and as put in practice against others.

80. Dr. Rivera’s fear of prosecution is not irrational for she saw on television and in

newsprints how other parents have been arrested and beaten by defendants agents for having

attempted to give food through the UPR gates to their children inside the campus. Furthermore,

when she attempted to introduce food into the campus she was threatened with prosecution by

defendants agents.

81. The challenged actions of defendants and “protocols” have been in place for over

a week, and may be over if the strike ends and there is no need to speak from a sidewalks to the

students, but in that case, especially in this case where a petition for TRO has been already two

days without scheduling, that duration of the prohibition is too short to be fully litigated prior to

its cessation or expiration of prohibitions.

82. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation that the same Dr. Rivera would be

subjected to the same action again, since there have been two strikes at the University during her

ten year tenure, one in 2005 and one in 2010, in both strikes the university has been “assisted” by

the state police and this action could repeat itself.

83. In Puerto Rico, the charge of obstruction of justice does not have a long

institutional history of disuse.

84. The APPU and Dr. Rivera Castillo are to a degree chilled from exercising their

right to free expression and have limited their actions in order to avoid enforcement

consequences.

85. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as allowed by the United States Constitution.

  15  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 16 of 18
  16  

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

Ave. Gándara, in the east (south) gate of the University of Puerto Rico, Río

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 Plaintiffs 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 Rios Piedras

campus.

C. Grant plaintiff’s punitive and exemplary damages to the maximum extent

allowable by law.

D. Grant compensatory damages for its actual injuries or grant nominal damages in

the alternative

E. Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as they may be entitled to, including damages;

and

F. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

G. That Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as to this court seems just

and proper.

  16  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 17 of 18
  17  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

At San Juan Puerto Rico, May 19, 2010.

s/ Edelmiro Salas González s/ José Luis Ramírez de León

EDELMIRO SALAS GONZÁLEZ JOSÉ 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) 763-0879
Tel. (787) 376-4659 Fax. (787) 282-6682
Fax. (787) 622-6230 Jlramirez6@coqui.net
edelmiro.salas@gmail.com Jlramirez639@msn.com

  17  
 Case 3:10-cv-01409-JP Document 12 Filed 05/19/2010 Page 18 of 18
  18  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ASOCIACIÓN PUERTORRIQUEÑA DE CASE NO: 10-1409 (JP)

PROFESORES UNIVERSITARIOS DEL
RECINTO DE RÍO PIEDRAS, represented
through its member and PRESIDENT DR. RE: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
YOLANDA RIVERA CASTILLO; CIVIL RIGHTS

Plaintiffs

v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JOSE FIGUEROA-SANCHA, in his personal

capacity and acting in his official capacity as
Police Superintendent; LEOVIGILDO
VAZQUEZ, acting his personal capacity and
acting in his official capacity; JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE, defendants of unknown name
who have participated in concert with the
defendants.

Defendants

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

PURSUANT TO 28 USC §1746

I, Yolanda Rivera Castillo, of legal age, single, university professor and President of the
Asociación Puertorriqueña de Profesores Universitarios (APPU), Río Piedras chapter and
resident of San Juan, Puerto Rico, do hereby declare and state as follows:
1. I work as a Professor of English in the Río Piedras campus of the University of Puerto Rico,
and chair the local chapter of the APPU as well.
2. As Chair of the local Río Piedras chapter of the APPU, I state that the facts enumerated in the
Second Amended Verified Complaint were verified by myself, based upon my own
personal knowledge, information declared by other declarants under penalty of perjury, by
documents of the defendants, and by newspaper reports.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 19, 2010, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

______________________
Yolanda Rivera-Castillo

  18