Case ID: f3d_699/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Myrna COLON-MARRERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hector J. CONTY-PEREZ, as President of the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission; Edwin Mundo-Rios, as Electoral Commissioner of the New Progressive Party (NPP); Eder E. Ortiz-Ortiz, as Electoral Commissioner of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP); Roberto I. Aponte-Berrios, as Electoral Commissioner of the Puerto Rico Independence Party (PIP); Julio Fontanet-Maldonado, as Electoral Commissioner of the Movimiento Union Soberanista (MUS); Adrian Diaz-Diaz, as Electoral Commissioner of the Puertorriquenos por Puerto Rico (PPR); Carlos Quiros-Mendez, as Electoral Commissioner of the Partido del Pueblo Trabajador (PPT), Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-2145.
    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
    Nov. 2, 2012.
    Carlos Antonio Del Valle Cruz, Del Valle Law Firm, San Juan, PR, Juan H. Saavedra-Castro, Rafael Enrique Garcia-Rodon, Banco Popular Bldg., San Juan, PR, Carlos Miguel Hernandez Lopez, Mayaguez, PR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jose L. Nieto-Mingo, Claudio Aliff-Ortiz, David C. Indiano-Vicic, Seth Allen Erbe, Indiano & Williams, PSC, San Juan, PR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before TORRUELLA, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER OF COURT

Appellant Myrna Colon-Marrero’s November 2, 2012 emergency motion is denied.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge

(Concurring).

I reluctantly join the denial of this motion. This Court is unable to provide an effective remedy for Plaintiff at this late date.

To this I add that this Court has not passed upon the validity of Plaintiffs HAVA claims and, as stated in the dissent issued earlier today, I vehemently disagree with the majority’s view that the NVRA does not apply to Puerto Rico. It may be that if the validity of such claims is established once the case returns to the District Court, and it is shown that Plaintiffs rights were interfered with, anyone found responsible of such conduct could very well be held liable both civilly and criminally under applicable federal statutes. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 245.