## Facts

- Lilliam E. Mendoza Toro was an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Puerto Rico.
- Guillermo Gil was the interim United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico and supervised case assignments within the office.
- Following protests over U.S. Navy operations on Vieques, protesters were prosecuted for misdemeanor trespass on Navy property.
- Gil assigned Mendoza Toro to prosecute some of the Vieques trespass cases.
- Mendoza Toro objected to the assignment and sought an injunction barring Gil from assigning her to those prosecutions, alleging the assignment violated her First Amendment rights.
- The district court issued an order to show cause directing Mendoza Toro to address subject-matter jurisdiction and whether the complaint stated a claim; the parties briefed those issues.
- Mendoza Toro moved to amend her complaint; the court considered the request in resolving the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a federal officer, or whether sovereign immunity barred the action.
2. Whether assigning an AUSA to prosecute cases she opposes on political or moral grounds violates the First Amendment as protected speech/association or unconstitutional compelled speech.
3. Whether amendment should be permitted or denied as futile.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider a request for injunctive relief against a federal officer alleged to be acting unconstitutionally, notwithstanding sovereign immunity.
- The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a First Amendment claim.
- The court denied the motion to amend because amendment would be futile.

## Legal Principles

- Sovereign immunity generally bars suits against the United States absent waiver, but a federal officer may be sued for prospective injunctive relief when the complaint alleges conduct beyond the officer’s constitutional authority.
- Public-employee First Amendment claims are evaluated under the Pickering/Connick framework, including whether the claim involves protected citizen speech and, if so, balancing employee interests against the government’s interests as employer.
- Advocacy and litigation positions taken by a government attorney in court are performed in an official capacity on behalf of the government; routine assignment of such duties is a managerial decision and does not, by itself, constitute unconstitutional compelled personal speech.
- Absent plausible allegations of retaliation for protected expression or interference with protected citizen speech, an internal dispute about job duties does not state a First Amendment violation.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the suit to proceed under § 1331 as an officer-directed request for prospective relief, but held that an AUSA has no First Amendment right to refuse ordinary prosecutorial assignments based on disagreement with the prosecutions’ policy implications; the action was dismissed and amendment was denied as futile.


Mendoza Toro v. Gil, 110 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.P.R. 2000)