Olga Hernández-Padilla filed the civil rights lawsuit against the Municipality of Naranjito and police officer Angel Rodriguez Medina under Section 1983, seeking federal intervention over what she characterizes as discriminatory law enforcement. The plaintiff alleges that during a religious activity at her home on April 11, 2026, municipal police officers witnessed third parties interrupting her worship but failed to provide equal protection while appearing to endorse competing Catholic religious activity.
According to the motion, Hernández-Padilla notified municipal police personnel, including an officer identified as 'Agent #141,' that her religious activity was being interrupted. The officer allegedly said 'he must contact his supervisor before acting' while holding his communication device, but despite the presence of municipal police vehicles, officers 'did not take reasonable and equal protective action to stop the interference.' The plaintiff claims she has video evidence of the incident that she can submit under seal or at an evidentiary hearing.
The motion alleges that municipal officers 'participated in, aligned themselves with, supported, endorsed, or visibly favored a Catholic activity while Plaintiff's own religious exercise was being interrupted.' Hernández-Padilla argues this conduct violates both the Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection guarantees, claiming the officers used 'municipal presence, vehicles, or authority in a way that emboldened the interruption or conveyed official favoritism.'
The case stems from what the plaintiff characterizes as an ongoing pattern of unequal treatment. She seeks to establish municipal liability under the Monell doctrine by alleging the conduct reflects 'an official policy or custom of unequal treatment,' 'ratification by policymakers,' or 'failure to train or supervise municipal officers regarding religious neutrality.' The complaint was filed in March 2025 as Civil No. 25-1387, with the preliminary injunction motion following over a year later.
The municipality has not yet responded to the specific allegations in the motion, which seeks broad prospective relief including orders to 'cease and desist from participating in, endorsing, favoring, or aligning municipal authority with any activity that interrupts' the plaintiff's religious exercise. The motion also requests preservation of extensive evidence including body-camera footage, dispatch logs, and internal communications.
Hernández-Padilla, who is representing herself pro se, requests an expedited evidentiary hearing and argues that 'the loss of constitutional freedoms for even minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury.' The motion seeks both to prevent future discrimination and to compel federal criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 247, which criminalizes interference with religious exercise.
The case presents questions about the scope of municipal liability for religious discrimination and the standards for preliminary relief in First Amendment cases. If granted, the injunction would require the municipality to provide 'constitutionally neutral and equal police response' and to refrain from favoring any particular religious activity over another in the exercise of municipal functions.