1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

DIAZ CASTRO, ET AL.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, ET 

AL.

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.: 16-2873 (CCC)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD PARTIES 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Plaintiff, Diaz Castro, hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20, for leave to amend the Complaint by 

filing a First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as exhibit A. In support of this motion the 

Plaintiff states as follows: 

Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint in order to add additional parties. The additional 

parties to be added as defendants are Puerto Rico state prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes and 

Emilio Aril Garcia. The identities of these additional parties were made available to the Plaintiff 

during a hearing held last week at the Investigation, Prosecution and Appeal Commission 

(“Comision de Investigacion, Procesamiento y Apelacion”) better known as “CIPA”. This is a 

commission holding an administrative hearing against Puerto Rico Police agent Juan J. Colon 

Baez, who was one of the investigating officers in the case against Plaintiff Diaz Castro. 

During the hearing, a sworn statement by Puerto Rico Police agent Hector Figueroa 

Torres was made available to the Plaintiff wherein Mr. Figueroa states under oath essentially that 

he was one of the first police officers to arrive at the double murder scene on April 7, 1999 in the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 5

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 1 of 33
2

Club Gallistico of Naguabo, where Plaintiff Diaz Castro was eventually charged, convicted and 

sentenced, and he investigated the case. In his statement under oath, Mr. Figueroa states that he 

interviewed eye witnesses and relayed this information to the state prosecutors. Specifically he 

states that he informed state prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes and Emilio Aril Garcia that he 

had an eye witness who was now of legal age, but at the time the facts occurred was a minor,

who could testify about what had occurred. However, the prosecutors told agent Figueroa to 

forget about that (see attached affidavit by agent Figueroa). Instead, the witnesses the 

prosecutors used to charge and convict plaintiff were Sharon Placeres Saenz and Yahaira Soto 

who, according to agent Figueroa, were not eye witnesses of the double murder.

With the addition of these parties the Plaintiff will be able to seek full satisfaction from 

all relevant parties and ascertain the full extent of damages done by Defendants. Rule 15 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given 

when justice so requires.” This mandate of liberal amendment extends even to amending 

pleadings at trial to conform to the evidence, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) 2.

On March 28, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order stating that all ‘John Does’ 

shall be identified with their true names by April 28, 2017 (see docket entry no. 20). The sworn 

statement by Hector Figueroa Torres identifying state prosecutors Sergio Rubio and Emilio Aril 

was made available to Plaintiff recently. Thus, the identities of these two state prosecutors were 

previously unavailable to the Plaintiff. As Noted by the United States Supreme Court in Foman 

v. Davis: “Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so 

requires’; this mandate is to be heeded. See generally, 3 Moore Federal Practice (2d ed. 1948), 

15.08, 15.10. If the underlying facts and circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper 

subject for relief, she ought to be afforded an opportunity to test her claim on the merits. In the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 5

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 2 of 33
3

absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on 

the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, 

undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of 

amendment, etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be freely given.” Foman v Davis, 

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (The district court abused its discretion by not allowing plaintiff to 

amend her complaint, after judgment of dismissal had been entered, to state an alternative theory 

of quantum meruit.); accord Bryant v Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001).

Although leave to amend “shall be given freely when justice so requires”, the decision to 

allow an amendment is purely discretionary. The Court cannot, however, abuse its discretion by 

denying leave to amend unless Plaintiff has abused his privilege in the past, there has been some 

undue delay, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 

allowed or the amendment will clearly prejudice the opposing party, Bryant, 252 F.3d at 1163.

Here, there are no such grounds for refusing amendment. First, since the complaint in the instant 

case was filed on October 25, 2016 and defendants have recently filed their answers (see docket 

entries 24 and 26), the discovery process except for the initial disclosures is just beginning. 

Second, there is no issue of repeated failure to cure deficiencies. Third, Defendants cannot claim 

any prejudice by virtue of this amendment. The proposed amendment contains the names of 

additional parties previously unavailable to the Plaintiff -- parties whose names were only made 

available to the Plaintiff recently and would have been made more likely than not during the 

discovery process, and the corresponding factual allegations and remedies sought against them. 

Fourth, the Plaintiff has not repeatedly failed to cure defects. The Plaintiff has been attempting to 

ascertain the identities of all ‘John Does’ who may have been negligible and responsible for 

Plaintiff’s damages. Moreover, Plaintiff’s amendment is timely. In its decision in Bryant v 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 5

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 3 of 33
4

Dupree, the Eleventh Circuit made it clear that”[t]he lengthy nature of litigation, without any 

other evidence of prejudice to the defendants or bad faith on the part of the plaintiffs, does not 

justify denying the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint” Bryant, 252 F.3d at 1164 

(The district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ request to amend deficient 

complaint to allege heightened scienter required under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 

after case had been pending three years.); see also Floyd v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. 872 F.2d 1462, 

1490 (11th Cir. 1989)(“The mere passage of time, without anything more, is insufficient reason 

to deny leave to amend.”) 

Since the discovery process is just commencing, Plaintiff has had no opportunity during 

this time to conduct any discovery for the purpose of determining defendants ‘John Does’. This 

information has only recently become available and no bad faith or prejudice can be claimed as 

to the timing of this amendment given the earliness of the litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion should be granted by allowing the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to 

include defendants Sergio Rubio Paredes and Emilio Aril Garcia. 

For all the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 

Granting its Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as 

exhibit “A”, deeming the amendment filed as of the date of the Order and granting any additional 

relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated: June 4, 2017 

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I electronically filed the forgoing Motion with the 

clerk of the court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of 

such filing to the attorneys of record.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 5

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 4 of 33
5

Juan A. Albino Gonzalez

/s/ JUAN A. ALBINO GONZALEZ

Attorney for Plaintiff

U.S.D.C. – P.R. #225405

Capital Center Building

South Tower Suite 702

239 Arterial Hostos Ave.

Hato Rey, San Juan, P.R. 00918

albinogonzalezlaw@gmail.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29 Filed 06/05/17 Page 5 of 5

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 5 of 33
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

MARIA JUDITH DIAZ CASTRO AND 

REPRESENTING HER MINOR AGE SON 

W.C.D.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; 

JUAN J. COLON BAEZ; MARIO RIVERA 

GIEGEL; LUIS RIOS DIAZ; LUIS NAVAS 

DE LEON; LEILANY CARRION DEL 

TORO; SERGIO RUBIO PAREDES; 

EMILIO ARIL GARCIA; JOHN DOES 1-100

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.: 16-2873

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JURY TRIAL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, through her undersigned attorney, and respectfully 

alleges and prays as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action for compensatory money damages against defendants for the violation of 

plaintiff’s civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and constitutional rights guaranteed under the 

Fourth Amendment regarding, prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and 

Fourteenth Amendment, prohibition against deprivation of life and liberty without substantive 

and procedural due process of the Constitutions and laws of the United States as applied to the 

States and its territories under the Due Process Clause; as well as Section 7,8 and 10 of Article II 

of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, without justification, illegal, 

unreasonable and arbitrary and constituted an oppressive and abusive use of power by the 

defendants, acting under color of law and authority, and for damages for injuries and/or moral 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 6 of 33
damages suffered by plaintiff due to defendants’ intentional and/or grossly negligent and 

negligent acts taken in callous and reckless disregard and/or deliberate indifference to the 

constitutional rights of the plaintiff and in violation of the tort laws of Puerto Rico. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 1986 and 1988 and the Fourth, 

Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is 

founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and the aforementioned statutory provisions. Plaintiff 

further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear 

and decide claims arising under the laws of Puerto Rico and related claims with respect to the 

pendent parties. 

3. Venue is proper within the district as the actions, omissions, and transactions Complained of, 

occurred within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

III. PARTIES 

4. Plaintiff Maria Judith Diaz Castro, hereinafter referred to as “Maria”, is of legal age, single, 

resident of Humacao, Puerto Rico, and a citizen of the United States of America. 

5. Co-plaintiff W.C.D. is the minor aged son of Maria J. Diaz Castro. He resides in Humacao, 

Puerto Rico.

6. Co-defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was at all times material to the facts alleged in 

this complaint, the employer of the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors who negligently

and maliciously instigated the criminal action against plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro. The agents 

and prosecutors that investigated and pursued an action against Plaintiff were at all times 

material to this complaint agents and prosecutors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 7 of 33
7. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is liable to the plaintiff for the acts and omissions of its 

employees and agents described herein under federal laws and the law of the place where said 

acts and omissions occurred, to wit, under the Puerto Rico Constitution, local civil rights law and 

general tort statutes there would be claims for: 1) malicious prosecution; 2) intentional infliction 

of emotional distress; 3) negligent selection, supervision and retention of agents and employees, 

including informants; 4) conspiracy to deprive a citizen of her civil rights; 5) abuse of process; 6) 

wrongful conviction and 7) loss of consortium. Co-defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is 

liable to the plaintiff for injuries and damages resulting from the acts and omissions of its agents 

and employees.

8. Pursuant to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Luis Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. __ (2016), the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is not a sovereign; thereby the sovereign immunity clause of the 

Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution is inapplicable.

9. Co-defendant, Juan J. Colon Baez, is an agent of the Puerto Rico Police, currently assigned to 

the tourist division, which at all times relevant to this complaint was a police officer for the 

Police Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico who under color of law, participated as 

such during the investigation of the murders of Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio Luyando,

prosecution and trial of plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro. He is sued in his individual capacity. 

10. Codefendants, Mario Rivera Geigel, Luis Rios Diaz, Luis Navas De Leon, Leilany Carrion 

Del Toro, Sergio Rubio Paredes and Emilio Aril Garcia were at the time relevant to this 

complaint the State Prosecutors for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, acting under color of law

who investigated and prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro. They are sued in their individual 

capacities. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 8 of 33
11. Codefendants, John Does 1-100 are Police Officers of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and 

Prosecutors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico whom at all times relevant to this complaint 

acted under color of law and were involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of plaintiff

Maria J. Diaz Castro. They are sued in their individual capacity.

IV. FACTS 

12. On April 7, 1999, Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio Luyando were murdered in a rooster fighting 

establishment in Naguabo, Puerto Rico. As a result of this unfortunate incident the Puerto Rico 

Police Department and the Humacao District Attorney’s Office launched an investigation. 

13. Since the beginning of the murder investigations, Police Officer Juan J. Colon Baez, who 

was assigned to this case, and Puerto Rico state prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes and Emilio 

Aril Garcia received specific information from various sources and in various occasions that the 

murder of Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio Luyando was committed by individuals known as 

“Pijuan” and “Falo”. 

14. Agent Juan J. Colon Baez, state prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes, Emilio Aril Garcia and 

John Does 1-100, also received information that plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro and her brothers, 

David Diaz Castro and Edwin Diaz Castro, were not involved in the murders of Efrain Pena 

Dieppa and Julio Luyando.

15. Puerto Rico Police officer Hector Figueroa Torres was also originally assigned to investigate 

the murder cases and interviewed an eye witness to the murders (who at the time was a minor), 

who was with one of the victims (Efrain Pena Dieppa) in the rooster fighting establishment when 

the murders occurred and stated that he observed “Pijuan” shoot and kill Efrain Pena Dieppa and 

Julio Luyando. He relayed this information to state prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes and Emilio 

Aril Garcia who with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s civil rights, told him to forget about that.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 9 of 33
16. The failure to pursue and disclose to the defense the eye witness account of the truth of the 

events led to the wrongful prosecution, wrongful conviction and lengthy sentence of 

incarceration of Plaintiff Diaz Castro. 

17. Puerto Rico Police officer Hector Figueroa Torres prepared a report regarding the interview 

of the eye witness, but this report mysteriously disappeared from his file. 

18. Despite all the information leading and pointing to “Pijuan” as the prime suspect of these

murders, on August 26, 2002, defendants arrested plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro and her two 

brothers (David and Edwin) and charged them with the murder Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio 

Luyando.

19. Prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes, Emilio Aril Garcia, Mario Rivera Geigel, Luis Rios Diaz, 

Luis Navas De Leon and Leilany Carrion Del Toro were the prosecutors in charge of the 

investigation of the case and provided legal advice to the Puerto Rico Police officers.

20. Puerto Rico Prosecutor Mario Rivera Geigel filed the murder and weapons law charges 

against Co-plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro. He also requested that co-plaintiff W.C.D. (who at the 

time was three (3) years old) be removed from the custody of his mother, co-plaintiff Maria J. 

Diaz Castro, thereby directly interfering and affecting the parent child relationship.

21. As part of the investigation process, Puerto Rico prosecutor at the time, Luis Rios Diaz, 

interviewed the mother (Nilsa Yolanda Dieppa Santa) of Efrain Pena Dieppa, who was one of 

murder victims.

22. Mrs. Dieppa provided a sworn statement to prosecutor Rios Diaz on February 6, 2003, 

wherein she stated under oath that “Falo” was the perpetrator of killing her son and provided 

details for reaching this conclusion. She did not mention plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro or her 

brothers David or Edwin.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 5 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 10 of 33
23. With all of the above mentioned information in their hands, the prosecutors directed the 

Puerto Rico Police officers to proceed with the criminal case against the plaintiff and her 

brothers, before and after the filing of criminal charges.

24. As part of the process in the criminal case, plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro’s attorney filed 

motions prior to the beginning of the trial; one of these motions filed was a Discovery Motion 

pursuant to Rule 95 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring the production all 

existing material evidence, general and exculpatory that would assist the defense in the 

preparation of their case and in the hands or under the control of the District Attorney’s Office. 

25. The defendants never produced the report prepared by agent Figueroa, nor Mrs. Dieppa’s 

sworn statement which constituted exculpatory and material evidence; nor informed the 

plaintiff’s attorney of this information as required by law.

26. The motion requiring the production of evidence including but not limited to exculpatory 

evidence was knowingly, maliciously and wrongfully and/or negligently with disregard of the 

duties answered by the named defendant prosecutors in a clear violation of Maria’s federal and 

state constitutional rights. 

27. Without having knowledge that this information was available, a Jury Trial was held in the 

Humacao Superior Court against plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro and her brothers David and 

Edwin for murder, weapons and conspiracy charges. 

28. Before the trial began, Prosecutor Luis Rios informed co-plaintiff Maria Diaz Castro that she 

should cooperate and take a plea deal or else her son would be left without a mother since she 

was going to rot in prison, thereby interfering and affecting the parent child relationship. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 6 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 11 of 33
29. The prosecutors that tried the case against plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro and her brothers 

David and Edwin were defendants Luis Rios Diaz, Luis Navas De Leon and Leilany Carrion Del 

Toro. 

30. These prosecutors stipulated the testimony of Mrs. Dieppa during trial, but only to the extent 

of her identification of her son, Efrain Pena Dieppa, who was murdered. They never informed 

Maria’s lawyer of her sworn statement.

31. Eventually, on June 11, 2003, Maria J. Diaz Castro and both of her brothers, David and 

Edwin, were found guilty of two counts of murder in the first degree under the Puerto Rico Penal 

Code and one count of conspiracy. David and Edwin Diaz Castro were also found guilty of 

article 8 of the Weapons Law of Puerto Rico.

32. On June 26, 2003, Judgment was entered and Maria J. Diaz Castro was sentenced to 99 

years imprisonment for one count of murder in the first degree in violation of the Puerto Rico 

Penal Code; 99 years imprisonment for another count of murder in the first degree in violation of 

the Puerto Rico Penal Code; and 3 years imprisonment for the violation of Article 262 

(conspiracy) of the Puerto Rico Penal Code; all sentences to be served concurrently. 

33. Maria was remanded to the custody of the Puerto Rico Corrections Department to serve her 

imprisonment sentence at a women’s maximum facility institution in Vega Alta, P.R.

34. An appeal ensued and the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals affirmed Maria’s sentence. 

Thereafter several motions for new trial were requested and denied. 

35. Finally, on May 29, 2015, after the presentation of sworn statements by multiple eye 

witnesses and legal arguments by Maria and her brothers’ attorneys, the Humacao Superior 

Court of Puerto Rico granted a new trial. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 7 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 12 of 33
36. On January 8, 2016, a second trial commenced against Maria and her brothers David and 

Edwin. The prosecutor in charge of the second trial was co-defendant Luis Navas De Leon. 

37. As part of its case in chief, the government called a witness who was called during the first 

trial, Yahaira Soto, who recanted her testimony.

38. Thereafter, on January 15, 2016, Prosecutor Navas De Leon requested the dismissal of the 

charges against Maria and her brothers, David and Edwin.

39. After twelve (12) and a half agonizing years of incarceration in a maximum security prison 

for women, Maria was finally released on January 15, 2016. 

V. ALLEGATIONS

40. The wrongful presentation of criminal charges, prosecution, incarceration and continued 

prosecution of plaintiff was a direct and proximate result of the wrongful, malicious and/or 

negligent acts and omissions of the defendants alleged herein. 

41. Based upon information and belief, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agents and prosecutors 

employed and supervised by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, procured and continued the 

prosecution of plaintiff by actively participating in said prosecution in numerous ways including, 

but not limited to, the following: 

a. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agents and prosecutors falsely and purposefully 

instituted criminal charges against plaintiff knowing that there was evidence that 

exculpated her. The Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors improperly influenced 

witnesses into testifying against plaintiff. 

b. Before the filing of murder charges against plaintiff, the Puerto Rico police agents 

and prosecutors interviewed an eye witness who identified “Pijuan” as the shooter and 

told the Puerto Rico police agents that plaintiff and her brothers were not present at the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 8 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 13 of 33
time of the shooting. They accused plaintiff of participating in the murders when they 

knew this was false. 

c. The Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors employed and negligently supervised

by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico knew that plaintiff was innocent of the crime she 

was being charged with. Notwithstanding, the agents and prosecutors encouraged the 

prosecution of the innocent party in order to obtain an unlawful conviction of plaintiff. 

d. The Puerto Rico Police agents and prosecutors negligently supervised by the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico actively participated in the continuation of the 

prosecution of plaintiff. 

e. The Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors, negligently supervised by the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to plaintiff in a 

timely manner, which would have saved her from the emotional and mental anguish and 

distress of facing murder charges, potential loss of freedom for the rest of her life and 

actual loss of freedom for over twelve (12) years of her life. The Puerto Rico police 

agents, prosecutors and the employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Department of Justice did not disclose said exculpatory information.

f. On numerous dates, after plaintiff was charged and found guilty of double murder and 

conspiracy, agents, prosecutors and employees of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice 

and Police Department, engaged in numerous acts to keep secret information and 

evidence exculpatory to plaintiff in order to conceal their wrongdoing. 

g. The named defendants in this action and the negligently supervised police agents and 

prosecutors continued to impede the liberation of plaintiff after she was sentenced, even 

knowing of her innocence. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 9 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 14 of 33
h. The Puerto Rico police agents, prosecutors and the government employees, 

maliciously and negligently included plaintiff as a co-defendant of the murder charges 

knowing that she was innocent. 

i. The Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors maliciously, negligently, with willful 

disregard of due care, and deliberate indifference, influenced the Puerto Rico Criminal 

Justice system and the jury into wrongly convicting plaintiff of a conspiracy and double 

murder charge, all which intentionally and/or negligently inflicted severe emotional 

distress on plaintiff. 

j. The Puerto Rico police agents, prosecutors and their supervisors knew or should have 

known that their intentional and negligent actions in convincing the jury that plaintiff 

was guilty of a conspiracy and double murder would wrongfully harm plaintiff’s civil 

rights. 

k. The Puerto Rico police agent in charge of the investigative agents or their supervisors 

failed to properly control the activities of the agents and failed to take any steps to 

prevent the agents from withholding exculpatory evidence, lying and fabricating 

accusations which ultimately harmed plaintiff. 

l. The supervising prosecutors failed to properly control the activities of the prosecutors

in charge of investigating and prosecuting plaintiff’s case and failed to take any steps to 

prevent the prosecutors from withholding exculpatory evidence, lying and fabricating 

accusations which ultimately harmed plaintiff.

42. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, reckless and/or negligent actions and 

omissions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, plaintiff was deprived of her liberty, deprived 

of her right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances, denied 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 10 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 15 of 33
her rights to equal protection of the law, deprived of her liberty without procedural and 

substantive due process of law, denied a fair judicial proceeding, subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment, and forced to endure severe emotional and physical suffering. 

43. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, reckless and/or negligent actions and 

omissions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, plaintiff was deprived her son, W.C.D., who at 

the time of her incarceration was merely three (3) years old, for twelve (12) years until her

release from imprisonment. Conversely, co-plaintiff W.C.D. was deprived of his relationship 

with his mother for basically his whole childhood.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PUERTO RICO

44. The paragraphs stated before are literally incorporated herein and are made part of this 

paragraph.

45. At said time and place the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, by its employees and supervisors, 

carelessly and negligently failed to maintain proper investigative techniques that if correctly 

applied to the case at hand would have exculpated plaintiff from all criminal guilt above and 

beyond reasonable doubt.

46. The negligently supervised Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors went as far as 

withholding exculpatory evidence from co-plaintiff, the Court for the District of Humacao and 

the jury in order to secure a malicious prosecution against co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro. Said 

actions culminated in the wrongful conviction and more than twelve (12) years of incarceration

of co-plaintiff, Diaz Castro, which greatly affected her mood, physical and mental health, and 

emotional sanity and provoked an almost unbearable emotional distress upon her. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 11 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 16 of 33
47. At all times material to this complaint, the Puerto Rico police agents, prosecutors and 

employees of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice referred to herein, were acting within the 

scope of their employment. 

48. At all times material to this Complaint, Puerto Rico police supervisors and prosecutors were 

required to act in accordance with mandatory, agency directives and operating procedures. The 

conduct of the individual Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors, as described herein, violated 

state and federal laws as well as the Puerto Rico Department of Justice’s directives and operating 

procedures. 

49. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through its supervisors in the Police Department and 

Department of Justice knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Puerto Rico police 

agents and prosecutors were engaged in conduct that violated state and federal law and internal

directives and operating procedures. Despite the agents’ and prosecutors’ violations of state and 

federal law and agency directives and operating procedures, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

and its supervisors failed to discipline and/or terminate the Puerto Rico police agents and 

prosecutors. At best, the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors were not disciplined, and at 

worst, they were rewarded, by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Police of Puerto Rico 

and Department of Justices’ supervisors for their misconduct. 

50. It is part of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s government policy and operating procedure 

that Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors must not engage in any investigative activity, 

which could abridge in any way the rights guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the 

Constitution and under no circumstances shall employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

engage in any conduct which may result in defaming the character, reputation, integrity, or

dignity of any citizen or organization of citizens of the United States. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 12 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 17 of 33
51. By virtue of the Puerto Rico Department of Justice and Police Department’s relationship to 

the public and the mandatory directives and operating procedures, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico owed plaintiff a duty of care to select, supervise and retain the Puerto Rico police agents

and prosecutors in accordance with such directives and operating procedures. 

52. By failing to discipline and/or terminate the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors for 

conduct which was illegal and violated the Justice and Police Departments’ directives and 

operating procedures, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (and its Justice and Police 

Departments) breached the duty of care it owed to the plaintiff. Instead, the Puerto Rico 

Department of Justice and Police Department continued to oppose the dismissal of the charges 

against plaintiff. 

53. The conduct of the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors, as described herein, was 

reasonably foreseeable to their supervisors and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

54. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Police and Justice Departments’ supervisors

repeated and knowing failure to discipline or otherwise dissuade in any way the Puerto Rico 

police agents and prosecutors unlawful conduct, their practice of rewarding the agents and 

prosecutors for such conduct, and their failure to act in accordance with the directives and 

operating procedures of the Police and Justice Department, directly and proximately caused the 

plaintiffs’ substantial harm. Despite the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the supervisors’ real 

or constructive knowledge of the unlawful conduct of the Puerto Rico police agents and 

prosecutors, they were permitted to engage in said conduct with impunity. 

55. The repeated and knowing failure of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and both the Justice 

and Police Departments’ supervisors to discipline or otherwise dissuade in any way the Puerto 

Rico police agents and prosecutors’ unlawful conduct, and the practice of the Commonwealth of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 13 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 18 of 33
Puerto Rico and the Police and Justice Departments’ supervisors to reward the Puerto Rico 

police agents and prosecutors for such conduct, created and fostered a culture in which the 

Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors routinely violated state and federal laws and both 

Departments’ directives in clear detriment of the Federal Justice System and the Constitutional 

Rights of the Citizens of the people of Puerto Rico creating an aura of hopelessness and state and 

federal impunity amongst the plaintiffs and general populace. 

56. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the supervisors’ conduct at both the Police and 

Justice Departments in this regard manifests a policy or custom of the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, implemented by the Police and Justice Departments’ supervisors, which breached the duty 

of care the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico owed to the plaintiff. 

57. The actions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the supervisors of the Police and 

Justice Department, as described herein, were taken pursuant to said policy or custom of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

58. The existence of the policy or custom described in Paragraph 54 was known to policymaking officers and officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and both Police and Justice 

Departments’ for a substantial period of time. Despite their knowledge of said policy or custom, 

the policy-making officers and officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and both Police

and Justice Departments failed to take steps to terminate the unlawful practices, failed to 

discipline or otherwise properly supervise the police agents and prosecutors who engaged in said 

conduct, and instead tolerated and sanctioned their conduct, directly and proximately causing the 

plaintiff substantial harm. 

59. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, reckless and/or negligent actions and 

omissions of the defendants as set forth above, co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro, was deprived 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 14 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 19 of 33
of her liberty, deprived of her right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for 

redress of grievances, denied her rights to equal protection of the law, deprived of her liberty 

without procedural and substantive due process of law, subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment, and forced to endure physical, emotional and mental suffering. 

60. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, reckless and/or negligent actions and 

omissions of the defendants as set forth above, co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro was deprived of 

raising, caring and being with her son due to the wrongful conviction and sentence levied against 

her. 

61. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional, reckless and/or negligent actions and 

omissions of the defendants as set forth above, co-plaintiff, W.C.D. was deprived of having his 

mother raise, care and be with him during his childhood due to the wrongful conviction and 

sentence levied against his mother.

62. The defendants are liable to plaintiffs for injuries and damages resulting from the Police of 

Puerto Rico agents and prosecutors’ institution and maintenance of criminal proceedings against 

co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro with malice and without probable cause. Said proceedings 

terminated in favor of co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro. 

63. The defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is liable to plaintiffs for injuries and damages 

resulting from the fact that the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors combined and 

conspired together, and with others unnamed, to employ illegal means for an illegal purpose, 

namely to wrongfully charge, imprison, and convict co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro and to 

cover up and keep secret their wrongful acts. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 15 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 20 of 33
64. The defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is liable to the plaintiffs for injuries and 

damages resulting from the fact that the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors by their acts 

and omissions alleged herein intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon plaintiffs. 

65. The defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is liable to the plaintiffs for injuries and 

damages resulting from the acts and omissions of its agents and employees. 

66. As a direct and proximate result and in consequence of the negligence of the defendant 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and that of its employees, said investigation was negligently 

made without following the proper professional standards of due care and law enforcement, all 

for which the plaintiffs ultimately suffered severe emotional distress. 

67. Due to negligence and malice of the Puerto Rico police agents and prosecutors acting as 

employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against co-plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro, 

murder charges were sought against her based on fabricated evidence. The Puerto Rico police

agents, prosecutors and/or employees performed acts that operated to deprive co-plaintiff, Maria 

J. Diaz Castro of her liberty interests under the Commonwealth and United States Constitutions, 

by perverting the legal process and detaining her without due process of law all which ultimately 

caused her severe emotional distress, was labeled a criminal in her community and for which she

lost permanently precious time of her young life incarcerated in a maximum security prison 

confined to a cell twenty two (22) hours a day for over eleven (11) years and a total of twelve 

(12) years imprisoned for a crimes she did not commit. 

68. Because of the negligent and malicious actions and omissions of the several employees of the 

co-defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and their fabricated criminal action, co-plaintiff 

Maria J. Diaz Castro, an innocent young woman and mother, was incarcerated in a maximum 

security prison confined to a cell twenty two (22) hours a day for over eleven (11) years and a 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 16 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 21 of 33
total of over twelve (12) years imprisoned in which she suffered a great deal of mental and

emotional distress. While imprisoned plaintiff suffered from being incarcerated in a hostile 

environment suffered physical harm as she was beaten to near death and had to be hospitalized. 

She also suffered from not being able to be with her son who was three (3) years old at the time 

she was incarcerated, for over twelve (12) years, thereby rupturing her family and ultimately 

afflicting her emotional stability. 

69. Because of the negligent and malicious actions and omissions of the several employees of the 

co-defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and their fabricated criminal action, co-plaintiff 

W.C.D. was unjustly deprived of having a mother during his childhood, thereby rupturing his 

relationship with his mother and ultimately afflicting his emotional and moral stability. 

70. Plaintiffs hold that because of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s illegal and negligent 

actions both their civil and constitutional rights to liberty and freedom were violated when the 

Commonwealth’s employees fabricated the evidence used against co-plaintiff’s Maria J. Diaz 

Castro prosecution and wrongful conviction even when they knew that she was innocent. Such 

negligent actions and omissions by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s employees resulted in 

damages suffered by plaintiffs covered by the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act and the General 

Torts Statute Articles 1802 & 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. 

71. As direct result of the deprivation of liberty and imprisonment, co-plaintiff Maria J. Diaz 

Castro suffered, is suffering and will continue to suffer severe and permanent mental, 

psychological, moral and emotional pain, anguish and distress; and, has sustained a loss of 

happiness, a loss of the capacity to enjoy life, income, family and an impairment of the capacity 

to perform activities common to a woman of her age and sex. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 17 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 22 of 33
72. Furthermore, as a consequence of the deprivation of liberty suffered by co-plaintiff Maria J. 

Diaz Castro and her resultant emotional damages, she has been and will continue to be under 

psychological and psychiatric treatment and medications. Past and future expenses for said 

psychological and psychiatric treatment and medications are reasonably estimated in the sum of 

$100,000.00. Due to all the suffering endured by plaintiff, and the gross misconduct and 

indifference of defendants, she is entitled to receive an award for punitive or exemplary 

damages, which will serve as punishment and deterrence for such unlawful and negligent 

conduct. 

73. As direct result of the deprivation of liberty and imprisonment of his mother, co-plaintiff 

W.D.C. suffered, is suffering and will continue to suffer severe and permanent mental, 

psychological, moral and emotional pain, anguish and distress; and, has sustained a loss of 

happiness, a loss of the capacity to enjoy life and family as he was deprived of his mother during 

his childhood. 

VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

74. The paragraphs stated before are literally incorporated herein and are made part of the 

following paragraphs:

75. During the course of the investigation regarding the murders of Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio 

Luyando, all defendants failed and refused to properly investigate leads and evidence that 

established that co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro was not involved in any way or manner in the 

above mentioned crime. Police officers and prosecutors having knowledge of these facts and 

exculpatory evidence proceeded with filing of charges against Maria. 

76. None of this exculpatory and material evidence or information was provided to co-plaintiff’s 

counsel as requested by him through the discovery process in a clear and blatant violation of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 18 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 23 of 33
Maria’s rights protected by both the Constitution of the United States and of the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. 

77. Defendants maliciously, with deliberate indifference, negligently and through deception 

concealed relevant, material and exculpatory information and evidence related to individuals 

who came forward with information relevant and indispensable to Maria’s defense; evidence that 

discarded her and her brothers as the murderers and information which identified the murderer of 

both victims as “Pijuan” and “Falo”. 

78. After the arrest of Maria and her brothers, defendants obtained and were provided with 

additional beneficial information for the defense of Maria as well as additional evidence that

indicated that “Pijuan” was responsible for the deaths of Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio Luyando. 

79. This evidence was provided to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico prosecutors: Sergio Rubio, 

Emilio Aril, Mario Rivera, Luis Rios, Luis Navas De Leon and Leilany Carrion, which contrary 

to their constitutional responsibility knowingly and/or with deliberate indifference, willfully,

conspired to conceal and through deception failed to provide Maria’s defense attorney with the 

same as required by law and in deprivation of her federal and local constitutional rights; 

subjecting her to the deprivation of her right to a fair trial and liberty. 

80. All of the above mentioned defendants continued with their deliberate indifference and/or 

concealment and deception even after having statements from multiple eye witnesses to the 

crime stating under oath that Maria and her brothers were not present when the shooting took 

place, as they insisted until January 15, 2016 of her involvement and guiltiness in this case. 

81. These violations to Maria’s constitutional rights were the direct and proximate cause of her 

wrongful conviction and sentence. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 19 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 24 of 33
82. Defendants conspired with each other and/or aided and abetted one another to fabricate 

charges, knowingly, intentionally against Maria and in their pursuit of winning the case at all 

costs failed to comply with the basic due process principles; these defendants having knowledge 

of the existence of exculpatory and material evidence that would assist Plaintiff to present an 

adequate defense maliciously and/or with deliberate indifference concealed the same in order to 

prosecute and obtain a conviction of an innocent individual through deception and in violation of 

co-plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights. 

83. Co-defendant prosecutors knowing of the existence of clear and convincing evidence which 

established that an accused (Maria) under the jurisdiction of the District Attorney’s Office of 

Humacao and the Puerto Rico Department of Justice, was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to 

99 years imprisonment of an offense that she didn’t commit, failed to seek remedy of the 

conviction and sentence; instead instructing police officers to proceed with the charges, 

prosecuting and convicting co-plaintiff, Maria J. Diaz Castro.

84. The actions and omissions of all of the defendants were taken in callous and reckless 

disregard and/or deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens and proximately caused the 

violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as 

alleged herein. All defendants therefore are liable for those sufferings. 

85. As a direct and proximately result of the actions described herein, murder and conspiracy 

charges were filed against Maria as she was wrongfully accused, charged, submitted to trial and 

found guilty based on incorrect evidence by the covering of exculpatory and material evidence 

for which she was jailed for twelve and half years under deplorable conditions. 

86. As a direct and proximately result of the actions describe herein, Maria suffered grievous and 

extreme mental, emotional and physical suffering and pain, for which she is entitled to damages. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 20 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 25 of 33
She also suffered illegal detention, arrest and confinement and loss of liberty as well as physical 

and mental abuse. 

87. Maria was confined to a cell in prison twenty (22) hours a day for over eleven years while 

she was incarcerated in a maximum security prison. While incarcerated she became depressed, 

was physically beaten and suffered extreme mental and physical harm. 

88. Due to her incarceration, Maria missed her son’s childhood, was subjected to physical and 

verbal attacks, which caused her extreme mental, emotional and physical anguish.

89. The acts and omissions performed by defendants deprived Maria of her federal Constitutional 

rights, by perverting the legal process to deprive her of liberty interests. These acts constitute an 

illegal detention and arrest, invasion of privacy, violation of due process and cruel and unusual 

punishment, all in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Said acts and omissions were negligent, grossly 

negligent or intentional and/or taken in callous and reckless disregard and/or deliberate 

indifference for the rights of the plaintiffs for which defendants are liable. 

90. The acts and omissions performed by defendants deprived W.D.C. of having his mother 

during his childhood causing him severe mental and emotional anguish. These acts constitute an 

illegal interference and affect the familial relationship between mother and son in violation of the 

United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Said acts and omissions were negligent, grossly 

negligent or intentional and/or taken in callous and reckless disregard and/or deliberate 

indifference for the rights of the plaintiffs for which defendants are liable.

VIII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

91. Plaintiff repeats and alleges each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs 

of this complaint as if fully alleged herein. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 21 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 26 of 33
92. The acts and omissions of the defendants described herein constitute illegal arrest and 

detention, invasion of privacy, deprivation of liberty, cruel and unusual punishment and violation 

of due process, all in violation of Article II of the Constitution of Puerto Rico and I LPRA 

Sections 10 and 11 and the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act. 

93. The acts and omissions of the defendants described herein constitute a tort actionable under 

Article 1802 and 1803 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico for which they respond to plaintiffs. 

94. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §1367 to hear and adjudicate 

these claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts. It also has jurisdiction with respect 

to the pendent parties included in this cause of action. This court has pendent jurisdiction to hear 

and adjudicate these claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts. 

IX. DAMAGES 

95. As a direct result of the deprivation of her Federal Civil Rights and the under the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico General tort statutes, Maria was jailed for twelve and a half 

years, confined to a cell in a maximum security prison for twenty two (22) hours a day for over 

eleven years. She lost her son’s childhood. She suffered and continues to suffer severe and 

permanent mental, psychological, moral and emotional pain, anguish and distress and has 

sustained a loss of her enjoyment of life and happiness.

96. While incarcerated Maria was severely beaten to the point where she had to be hospitalized 

for a significant amount of time. She suffered severe physical abuse while incarcerated.

97. As a direct result of the deprivation of his Federal Civil Rights and the under the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico General tort statutes, W.C.D. was deprived of having a mother 

during his childhood. He suffered and continues to suffer severe permanent mental, 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 22 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 27 of 33
psychological, moral and emotional pain, anguish and distress and has sustained a loss of his

enjoyment of life and happiness.

98. Defendants actions besides unlawful were done with malice, deliberate indifference, 

negligence and knowledge that their actions constituted a violation of Plaintiffs existing and 

recognized federally constitutional rights. As a result of these violations Plaintiffs are entitled to 

receive an award for damages and punitive damages which will preclude the occurrence of such 

unlawful conduct. 

99. Maria Judith Diaz Castro demands that judgment be entered in her favor and against 

defendants awarding her the amount of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) in compensatory 

damages and punitive damages; attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interests. 

100. W.C.D. demands that judgment be entered in his favor and against defendants awarding him 

the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages and punitive 

damages; attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interests.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests and prays that this Honorable Court grant the 

instant complaint, therefore, entering judgment in her favor awarding the amount for 

compensatory damages as was detailed above by plaintiffs, jointly and severally against all 

defendants for their actions and/or omissions which caused plaintiff physical, mental and 

emotional damages; punitive damages; attorney’s fees and costs; prejudgment interest and such 

other and further relief as may appear just and reasonable. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated: June 4, 2017

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I electronically filed the forgoing Complaint with the 

clerk of the court using the CM/ECF electronic filing system, which will send notification of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 23 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 28 of 33
such filing to the attorneys of record.

 

Juan A. Albino Gonzalez

/s/ JUAN A. ALBINO GONZALEZ

 Attorney for Plaintiff

U.S.D.C. – P.R. #225405

 Capital Center Building

 South Tower Suite 702

239 Arterial Hostos Ave.

 Hato Rey, San Juan, P.R. 00918

 (787)771-0907

 albinogonzalezlaw@gmail.com

Luz M Rios-Rosario

Attorney for Plaintiff

s/Luz M Rios Rosario

USDC-PR 126614

54 Coll & Toste St

San Juan, PR 00918

Tel. 787 758-7600

Cell. 787 396-2120

 E-mail: luzmrios.law@gmail.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 24 of 24

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 29 of 33
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-2 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 4

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 30 of 33
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-2 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 4

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 31 of 33
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-2 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 4

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 32 of 33
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-10 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Case 3:16-cv-02873-SCC Document 29-2 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 4

Exhibit Exhibit J Page 33 of 33