Fernandez-Salicrup v. Figueroa-Sancha, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Fernandez-Salicrup v. Figueroa-Sancha, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1513

BRI AN FERNNDEZ- SALI CRUP, i ndi vi dual l y and i nr epr esent at i on of hi s mi nor chi l dr en; MAR A RAMOS- SANTI AGO,i ndi vi dual l y and i n r epr esent at i on of her mi nor chi l dr en;

V. F. - R. , mi nor ; J . F. - R. , mi nor ; CONJ UGAL PARTNERSHI PFERNNDEZ- RAMOS,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

J OS FI GUEROA- SANCHA, Super i nt endent of t he Pol i ce Depart ment ;

J OS L. CALDERO- LPEZ, Col onel , Di r ect or of t he Car ol i naPol i ce Regi on; J OS LUI S D AZ- PORTALAT N, Capt ai n;

GI NNETTE ROSADO, Pol i ce Of f i cer ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Thompson, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Eduardo Vera Ram r ez, wi t h whom Landr n Vera, LLC, Ei l eenLandr n Guar di ol a, and Lui s Rodr guez Muoz, wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ant s.

Susana I . Peagar cano- Br own, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al ,

wi t h whom Mar gar i t a L. Mer cado- Echegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , andZar el Sot o- Acab, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al , wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ees Fi guer oa- Sancha, Cal der o- Lpez, D az- Por t al at n, andRosado.

Zar el Sot o- Acab, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al , wi t h whomMar gar i t a L. Mer cado- Echegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , and Susana I .Peagar cano- Br own, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al , wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ee Fi gueroa- Sancha.


2/33

J une 25, 2015

-2-


3/33

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. On Oct ober 8, 2010, Pl ai nt i f f s

Br i an Fer nndez- Sal i cr up, Mar a Ramos- Sant i ago, and t he Conj ugal

Par t ner shi p f or med bet ween t hem - - on t hei r own behal f and on

behal f of t hei r mi nor chi l dr en Val er i e Fer nndez- Ramos

( "Fer nndez" ) and J ess Fer nndez- Ramos - - f i l ed sui t agai nst

Puer t o Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment ( "PRPD" ) Super i nt endent J os

Fi guer oa- Sancha ( "Fi guer oa" ) , PRPD Car ol i na Regi onal Di r ect or J os

Cal dero- Lpez ( "Cal dero") , PRPD Canvanas Di st r i ct Commander Lui s

D az- Por t al at n ( "D az") ( col l ect i vel y, t he "Super vi sor y

Def endant s" ) , and PRPD of f i cer J eanet t e Rosado ( t ogether wi t h t he

Super vi sor y Def endant s, t he "Def endant s") . Pl ai nt i f f s al l eged,

under 42 U. S. C. 1983 and anal ogous pr ovi si ons of t he Puert o Ri co

Ci vi l Code' s t or t s st at ut e, t hat Fer nndez' s Four t h, Fi f t h, Ni nt h,

and Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed when she was

unconst i t ut i onal l y ar r est ed and subj ect ed t o excessi ve f or ce dur i ng

an i nci dent at t he Lui s Her nai z- Ver onne Hi gh School ( t he "School " ) .

Fol l owi ng di scover y, t he di st r i ct cour t str uck Pl ai nt i f f s ' exper t

r epor t and gr ant ed summary j udgment i n f avor of t he Supervi sor y

Def endant s; shor t l y t her eaf t er , i t di smi ssed wi t h pr ej udi ce t he

cl ai ms agai nst Rosado as wel l . Pl ai nt i f f s now appeal . For t he

r easons t hat f ol l ow, we af f i r m t he excl usi on of t he exper t r epor t ,

t he gr ant of summary j udgment i n f avor of t he Supervi sor y

Def endant s, and t he di smi ssal wi t h pr ej udi ce of Pl ai nt i f f s' Four t h

Amendment excessi ve f or ce cl ai magai nst Rosado. As t o Pl ai nt i f f s'

-3-


4/33

Four t h Amendment unconst i t ut i onal ar r est cl ai m agai nst Rosado,

however , we rever se t he di smi ssal and r emand f or t r i al .

I. Background

A. Factual Background1

On Oct ober 9, 2009, t hen- Puert o Ri co Governor Lui s

For t uo at t ended an event at t he J ess T. Pi er o Publ i c Housi ng

Pr oj ect , l ocat ed acr oss t he st r eet f r om t he School . A number of

st udent s at t he School obj ect ed t o For t uo' s pr esence, so, as a

f or m of pr ot est , t hey t hr ew obj ect s such as eggs, r ocks, and t r ee

br anches at t he PRPD of f i cers guardi ng t he event and at cars

passi ng t hr ough t he st r eet . I n r esponse, D az, t he commandi ng

of f i cer at t he scene, i nst r uct ed a number of pol i ce of f i cer s - -

i ncl udi ng Rosado - t o ent er t he School i n or der t o qui et t he

si t uat i on and ar r est t hose r esponsi bl e f or t hr owi ng obj ect s.

Once the of f i cer s ent er ed t he School ' s premi ses, however ,

t he si t uat i on t ur ned chaot i c. The st udent s, whet her t hey wer e

t hr owi ng obj ect s or not , al l r an t owar ds the School bui l di ng. One

of t hose st udent s was Fernndez. Though Fernndez never t hr ew

anyt hi ng, she ran away f r omt he PRPD, ent er ed a hal l way, cl osed t he

gate behi nd her , and r emai ned near by. PRPD of f i cer s, i ncl udi ng

1 We r eci t e t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f s,t he part y opposi ng summary j udgment , and dr aw al l i nf erences i nt hei r f avor . See, e. g. , Per r y v. Roy, 782 F. 3d 73, 77 ( 1st Ci r .2015) .

-4-


5/33

Rosado, soon arr i ved at t he gat e and ordered Fer nndez t o open i t ;

she i mmedi at el y compl i ed.

Upon openi ng t he gat e, Rosado spoke t o Fer nndez " i n a

r ough manner " and pushed her asi de. Fernndez, not happy wi t h how

she was bei ng spoken t o, t ol d Rosado not t o speak t o her l i ke t hat ,

t o whi ch Rosado answered that she coul d speak t o Fernndez however

she l i ked. Fer nndez once agai n expr essed her di spl easur e wi t h

Rosado' s t one, at whi ch poi nt Rosado "shoved" Fer nndez f ace- f i r st

agai nst a wal l and pl aced a handcuf f on her l ef t wr i st . 2 But

bef or e Rosado coul d f i ni sh handcuf f i ng her , Fer nndez sl i pped

t hr ough t he gate i n an at t empt t o escape. As t hi s was occur r i ng,

a number of st udent s gr abbed Fer nndez' s r i ght ar m and t r i ed t o

hel p her by pul l i ng her away f r omRosado. Thi s l ed t o a smal l t ug-

of - war bet ween Rosado and the st udent s, hur t i ng Fernndez i n the

pr ocess. Ul t i mat el y, t hi s escape at t empt f ai l ed, and Fer nndez was

escor t ed t o t he School Di r ect or ' s of f i ce.

Fer nndez was l at er t r anspor t ed t o a near by pol i ce

st at i on, and then t o t he Car ol i na pol i ce headquar t er s wher e she was

gi ven a ci t at i on t o appear i n cour t . She, al ong wi t h ni ne ot her

2 Rosado, meanwhi l e, t el l s a di f f er ent st or y pr ecedi ng t he ar r est .

Accor di ng t o Rosado, once Fer nndez opened t he gat e and Rosadowal ked by i t , Fer nndez gr abbed Rosado' s f i r ear m and at t empt ed t opul l i t f r om t he hol st er . Rosado al so t est i f i ed t hat Fer nndezi nf ormed Rosado that Rosado "coul d not go i n" t o t he School .Though we have descr i bed and adopt ed t he f act s i n t he l i ght mostf avor abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f s, we not e t hi s di screpancy her e due t o i t sr el evance i n t he di scussi on bel ow.

-5-


6/33

st udent s, was char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng Ar t i cl e 208 ( causi ng

aggr avat ed damages) , Ar t i cl e 251 ( causi ng vi ol ence agai nst t he

publ i c aut hor i t y) , and Ar t i cl e 258 ( r i ot i ng) of t he Puer t o Ri co

Penal Code. The charges were event ual l y di smi ssed.

B. Procedural Background

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t i n t he di str i ct cour t on Oct ober 8,

2010. Fol l owi ng t he onset of di scover y, a pr ot r act ed di sput e ar ose

r egardi ng document s i n t he possess i on of t he PRPD. Because t he

i nt r i caci es of t hi s di sput e ar e r el evant t o Pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai mt hat

t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n excl udi ng t hei r exper t ' s r epor t , we

descr i be t he chr onol ogy of t hi s di sput e i n some det ai l .

C March 29, 2011. Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on t ocompel document s f r om non- par t i es t he I nt er nalI nvest i gat i on Bureau and t he Human Resour cesOf f i ce of t he PRPD ( col l ect i vel y, t he "Non-Par t i es") . These document s, Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai med,cont ai ned cri t i cal i nf or mat i on t o ai d t hei rexper t wi t ness, Dr . Wi l l i am Gaut , i n r ef ut i ng

Rosado' s al l egat i on t hat Fer nndez had r eachedf or Rosado' s weapon. Def endants moved t o quasht he request s t he same day, al l egi ng t hatDef endant s had never r ecei ved a copy of t hesubpoena ser ved on t he Non- Par t i es and t hat i nany event t he request ed per sonnel f i l es wer econf i dent i al . On Apr i l 5, 2011, t he di st r i ctcour t i ssued a show cause or der r equi r i ng t heNon- Par t i es t o expl ai n why t he mot i on t o compelshoul d not be gr ant ed. On Apr i l 22, 2011, t heNon- Par t i es r esponded, expl ai ni ng t hat t hedocument s were conf i dent i al , t hat t he r equest was

over l y cost l y and bur densome, and t hat Pl ai nt i f f sr ef used t o exami ne t he f i l es i n or der t o i dent i f yt he r el evant document s t o be pr oduced. Thedi st r i ct cour t chose not t o i mmedi at el y resol vet he i ssue, opt i ng i nst ead t o l eave t he mot i onspendi ng.

-6-


7/33

C April 20, 2011. Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a new mot i on t ocompel , t hi s t i me seeki ng i ni t i al di scl osur esf r om Def endant s. Thi s mot i on was deni ed wi t houtpr ej udi ce on Apr i l 23, 2011, because Pl ai nt i f f sf ai l ed t o show t hat t he par t i es compl i ed wi t h t hecour t ' s meet and conf er r equi r ement s.

C April 25, 2011. Pl ai nt i f f s r e- f i l ed t hei r Apr i l20 mot i on t o compel i ni t i al di scl osur es. Thi smot i on pr ovi ded pr oof of compl i ance wi t h t hecour t ' s meet and conf er r equi r ement s. Thedi st r i ct cour t chose not t o i mmedi at el y resol vet he i ssue, opt i ng i nst ead t o l eave t he mot i onpendi ng.

C June 23, 2011. Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a request f or acour t or der seeki ng t he rel ease of conf i dent i al

per sonnel f i l es hel d by t he PRPD. Thi s mot i onwas i n r esponse to an Apr i l 25, 2011, i nf or mat i vemot i on by t he Non- Par t i es i n whi ch t he Non-Par t i es conf i r med t hei r bel i ef t hat t he per sonnelf i l es bei ng sought by Pl ai nt i f f s wer econf i dent i al and t hus coul d not be r el easedabsent a cour t order . The di st r i ct cour t chosenot t o i mmedi at el y r esol ve t he i ssue, opt i ngi nst ead t o l eave t he mot i on pendi ng.

C August 8, 2011. The di st r i ct cour t ent er ed acase management order set t i ng August 30, 2011, as

t he deadl i ne t o ser ve i ni t i al di scl osur es andDecember 31, 2011, as t he deadl i ne f or al ldi scover y. I n l i ght of t hi s or der , i t deni ed asmoot Pl ai nt i f f s' Apr i l 25, 2011, mot i on t o compeli ni t i al di scl osures .

C October 24, 2011. Pl ai nt i f f s ser ved non- par t yPRPD wi t h a subpoena t o produce document s,i nf or mat i on, or obj ect s, or t o per mi t t hei nspect i on of pr emi ses by November 8, 2011. Bot hPRPD and Def endant s f i l ed mot i ons t o quash onNovember 7, 2011, al l egi ng a l ack of pr oper

not i ce to Def endant s and a f ai l ur e t o gi ve PRPD ar easonabl e t i me t o compl y. On November 14, 2011,Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on t o compel and f orsanct i ons, ar gui ng t hat t he mot i ons t o quash wer enot j ust i f i ed and t hat sanct i ons wer e i n or dersi nce t he PRPD di d not compl y wi t h t he subpoenaby November 8. The mot i ons were r ef er r ed t o a

-7-


8/33

magi st r at e j udge on November 17. The f ol l owi ngday, t he magi st r ate j udge deni ed t he mot i ons t oquash and gr ant ed i n par t and deni ed i n par tPl ai nt i f f s' mot i on. The j udge or der ed PRPD t opr oduce t he document s, i nf or mat i on, or obj ect sr equest ed by Pl ai nt i f f s by December 2 ( l at er

ext ended unt i l December 16 and t hen t o December27) , but t he j udge decl i ned t o i mpose sanct i onsf or f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he subpoena.

C December 1, 2011. The par t i es at t ended a st at usconf er ence wi t h t he magi st r at e j udge. At t heconf er ence, Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai ned t hat whi l e t heyhad r et ai ned a pol i ce pr ocedur e/ pr act i ce exper t ,t he exper t coul d not compl et e hi s r epor t unt i l her ecei ved t he document s sought i n Pl ai nt i f f s'mot i ons t o compel . Def endant s r esponded t hatmany of t he r equest ed documents had al r eady beenpr oduced, t hat some di d not exi st , and thatot her s - - such as vi deos and phot ogr aphs - - wer ebei ng l ocat ed and woul d be pr oduced. The par t i esi ndi cat ed t hat t hey woul d be meet i ng on December9 t o di scuss t he PRPD' s pr oduct i on i n an ef f or tt o nar r ow t he r emai ni ng i ssues.

C December 7, 2011. The par t i es j oi nt l y moved f oran ext ensi on of t he di scover y deadl i ne t o Mar ch31. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he extensi on onDecember 22, 2011, but noted t hat " [ n] o f ur t her

extensi ons wi l l be gr ant ed" and t hat t he"[ f ] ai l ur e t o abi de by t he pr esent deadl i nes wi l lr esul t i n pr ecl usi on. "

C December 8, 2011. The di st r i ct cour t or der edPl ai nt i f f s t o i nf or m t he cour t wi t hi n one weekwhet her t hei r pendi ng Mar ch 29, Apr i l 25, andJ une 23 di scover y mot i ons wer e st i l l out st andi ngand i n need of r esol ut i on. Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t or espond, so on December 23, 2011, t he di st r i ctcour t i ssued an or der r equi r i ng Pl ai nt i f f s t oshow cause as t o why i t shoul d not deny al l t hr ee

mot i ons as a sanct i on f or Pl ai nt i f f s ' f ai l ur e t or epl y. Thi s spur r ed Pl ai nt i f f s i nt o act i on, andt hey r esponded t he same day. Accor di ng t oPl ai nt i f f s, "t he par t i es [ wer e] at t empt i ng t osol ve t hese i ssues ami cabl y, " not i ng t hat some oft he document s had been pr oduced and t hat t hepar t i es wer e schedul i ng a meet i ng f or ear l y

-8-


9/33

J anuar y r egardi ng t he r emai ni ng product i on.Pl ai nt i f f s ant i ci pat ed t hey woul d be bet t er abl et o answer t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nqui r y f ol l owi ngt hi s meet i ng, and t hus asked t he di st r i ct cour tt o hol d t he mot i ons i n abeyance unt i l t hen. OnJ anuar y 4, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s

pr oposal , r ul i ng t hat "[ s] i nce t he di scover yi ssues rai sed [ i n t he Or der t o Show Cause] werei n essence di scussed wi t h Magi st r at e J udge Vl ez,t he di scover y mot i ons pendi ng . . . ar e her ebyDeni ed Wi t hout Prej udi ce. "

C March 19, 2012. Def endant s and non- par t y PRPDeach f i l ed a mot i on t o quash a March 5 subpoenaseeki ng t he di sci pl i nar y and/ or admi ni st r at i vef i l es of t went y- ei ght pol i ce of f i cer s. Wi t h t heexcept i on of t he f i l es of co- def endant s D az andRosado, whi ch were pr oduced, t he mot i ons al l egedt hat t he ot her t went y- si x f i l es wer e not r el evantand coul d not r easonabl y l ead t o t he di scover y ofadmi ssi bl e evi dence. PRPD al so argued t hat t hesubpoena f ai l ed t o al l ow a r easonabl e t i me f orPRPD t o compl y. I n r esponse, on March 27,Pl ai nt i f f s once agai n f i l ed a mot i on t o compeland f or sanct i ons. The di st r i ct cour t chose nott o i mmedi at el y addr ess t he mot i on, opt i ng i nst eadt o l eave i t pendi ng.

C March 30, 2012. The par t i es f i l ed a j oi nt mot i on

f or a one- mont h ext ensi on of t he di scover ydeadl i ne. The di st r i ct cour t chose not t oi mmedi at el y addr ess t he mot i on, opt i ng i nst ead t ol eave i t pendi ng.

C April 24, 2012. A st at us conf er ence was hel dbef or e t he magi st r ate j udge. Dur i ng t heconf er ence, t he magi st r at e j udge not ed t hat t heMarch 19 mot i ons i nvol vi ng t he March 5 subpoenawer e st i l l pendi ng, as was t he j oi nt mot i on f oran ext ensi on of t he di scover y deadl i ne. I t al socomment ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f s had yet t o pr oduce Dr .

Gaut ' s exper t r epor t .C April 30, 2012. Def endant s f i l ed t hei r mot i on

f or summary j udgment al ong wi t h a cor r espondi ngst at ement of uncont est ed mat er i al f act s.

-9-


10/33

C May 10, 2012. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed as moott he par t i es j oi nt mot i on f or an ext ensi on of t hedi scover y deadl i ne unt i l Apr i l 30, 2012.

C May 11, 2012. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t heMarch 19, 2012, mot i ons t o quash t he March 5subpoena and deni ed Pl ai nt i f f s' Mar ch 27, 2012,mot i on t o compel and f or sanct i ons.

C May 21, 2012. Pl ai nt i f f s di scl osed Dr . Gaut ' sexpert report.

C June 4, 2012. Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed thei r opposi t i ont o summary j udgment , t hei r addi t i onal uncont est edf act s, and opposi t i on t o Def endant s' st at ement ofuncont est ed f act s. As par t of t hei r opposi t i onand al t er nat i ve r eci t at i on of t he f acts,

Pl ai nt i f f s r el i ed on t he exper t r epor t of Dr .Gaut . Def endant s obj ected t o t he use of Dr .Gaut ' s r epor t , ar gui ng t hat i t was produced wel laf t er t he cl ose of di scover y and t hus shoul d best r i cken f r om t he r ecor d.

Over one year l at er , on Sept ember 6, 2013, t he di st r i ct

cour t r ul ed on Def endant s' mot i on f or summary j udgment . As an

i ni t i al mat t er , i t agr eed wi t h Def endant s r egar di ng Dr . Gaut ' s

expert r eport , hol di ng that because t he case management order ' sdi scover y deadl i ne r ef er r ed t o al l di scover y - - whi ch t he di st r i ct

cour t i nt er pr et ed t o mean bot h f act and exper t di scover y - - and

Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o pr oduce t he r epor t bef or e t hi s deadl i ne, 3 t he

3 The di st r i ct cour t ' s opi ni on i ncor r ect l y not ed t hat t he deadl i net o concl ude al l di scover y was December 31, 2011. Whi l e t hi s wast he i ni t i al deadl i ne as l ai d out i n t he case management or der , on

December 7, 2011, t he cour t ext ended t hi s deadl i ne unt i l March 31,2012. The par t i es t hen j oi nt l y r equest ed t hat t he deadl i ne beext ended even f ur t her - - unt i l Apr i l 30, 2012. The di st r i ct cour tnever act ual l y gr ant ed t hi s ext ensi on, i nst ead di smi ssi ng i t asmoot on May 10, 2012. Regardl ess of whi ch dat e const i t ut ed t heact ual cl ose of di scover y (Mar ch 31 or Apr i l 30, 2012) , Pl ai nt i f f s'di scl osur e of t he report on May 21, 2012, was wel l beyond t he

-10-


11/33

cour t woul d excl ude al l st at ement s of mat er i al f act t hat r el i ed on

the report.

I t al so deemed admi t t ed Par agr aph 12 of Def endant s'

St atement of Uncont est ed Fact s, whi ch st at ed t hat " [ w] hen Agent

J ennet t e Rosado- Par r i l l a ( ' Rosado' ) was goi ng t o wal k by t he gat e,

Fer nndez gr abbed her r egul at i on f i r ear m, t r i ed t o pul l i t f r omt he

hol st er and t ol d Rosado t hat she coul d not go i n. " Though

Pl ai nt i f f s deni ed t hi s st at ement i n t hei r opposi t i on paper s, t he

cour t r ul ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f s' r ecor d ci t at i on t o Fer nndez' s

deposi t i on - - wher ei n Fer nndez gave a l ong nar r at i ve descr i pt i on

of t he event s of Oct ober 9 and never ment i oned an i nci dent

i nvol vi ng Rosado' s gun - - was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he deni al .

Havi ng deal t wi t h t hese pr el i mi nar y evi dent i ar y i ssues,

t he di st r i ct cour t moved t o t he mer i t s. Looki ng t o Fer nndez' s

ar r est , t he cour t expl ai ned t hat t her e was no const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on because " t he f act s and ci r cumst ances wi t hi n Rosado' s

knowl edge woul d have l ed a pr udent person i nt o bel i evi ng that

Fer nndez commi t t ed a cr i me. " I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound

t hat t wo separate cr i mes were commi t t ed. Fi r st , "Fer nndez gr abbed

and t r i ed t o pul l Rosado' s f i r ear m out of i t s hol st er , " whi ch,

accor di ng t o t he cour t , " [ u] ndoubt abl y" provi des probabl e cause f or

ar r est . Second, i t hel d t hat because Fer nndez r an t owar ds the

School hal l way and cl osed t he hal l way gate, Rosado coul d have

deadl i ne.

-11-


12/33

concl uded t hat Fer nndez was " obst r uct i ng pol i ce act i vi t y by

r est r i ct i ng access t o a school i n whi ch st udent s wer e t hr owi ng

obj ect s at passi ng vehi cl es. "

Turni ng next t o Pl ai nt i f f s' excessi ve f or ce cl ai m, t he

di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat i t was "not unr easonabl e f or Rosado t o

pl ace Fer nndez f ace f i r st t owar d a wal l t o ef f ect uat e t he ar r est "

and t here was " no evi dence on t he r ecor d t hat Rosado' s t echni que

di d not compor t wi t h st andar d pol i ce pr act i ce or was mor e f or cef ul

t han t he nor m. " I t added t hat " i t was obj ect i vel y r easonabl e f or

Rosado t o pr event Fer nndez f r omescapi ng by pul l i ng her away f r om

ot her st udent s. " As a r esul t , t he cour t concl uded t hat Fer nndez' s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s wer e not vi ol at ed, and t hus t he Super vi sor y

Def endant s were ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment . 4

4 The di st r i ct cour t al so gr ant ed summar y j udgment on Pl ai nt i f f s'Fi f t h, Ni nt h, and Four t eent h Amendment cl ai ms. Pl ai nt i f f s do not

appeal t he Ni nt h and Four t eent h Amendment cl ai ms, so we need notdi scuss t hem. As t o t he Fi f t h Amendment cl ai m, i t i s uncl ear f r omPl ai nt i f f s' br i ef whet her or not t hey ar e appeal i ng t he i ssue.Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s do ment i on Rosado' s f ai l ur e to pr ovi de Mi r andawar ni ngs, t he br i ef ment i on seems t o be rai sed i n t he cont ext ofpr ovi di ng suppor t f or t hei r Four t h Amendment cl ai m and not i n anat t empt t o appeal t he Fi f t h Amendment cl ai m. To t he ext ent t hi swas an at t empt t o appeal t he i ssue, however , t he appeal f ai l s f ort wo r easons. Fi r st , Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l t o pr ovi de any l egal ar gumentor ci t at i ons t o suppor t t hei r ar gument , and t hus i t i s deemedwai ved. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .1990) . Second, t he mere f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de Mi r anda warni ngs does

not subj ect an of f i cer t o a 1983 cl ai m. See McConki e v. Ni chol s,446 F. 3d 258, 261 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "Even wher e an of f i cer quest i onsa suspect i n an unl awf ul manner , t hi s does not necessar i l y meant hat t he quest i oni ng ent i t l es t he pl ai nt i f f t o damages undersect i on 1983; t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed t hat i t woul d bei nappr opr i at e t o i mpose t or t l i abi l i t y ever y t i me an of f i cerobt ai ns an i nvol unt ar y sel f - i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement or t he pol i ce

-12-


13/33

Wi t h al l of t he f eder al cl ai ms agai nst t he Super vi sor y

Def endant s di sposed of , t he di st r i ct cour t next addr essed t he

r emai ni ng cl ai ms under Puer t o Ri co l aw. The cour t expl ai ned t hat

i t was decl i ni ng t o exer ci se i t s suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on, and

t hus di smi ssed t he cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce.

As f or Rosado, t he di st r i ct cour t r equi r ed Pl ai nt i f f s to

show cause by Sept ember 16, 2013, as t o why, gi ven i t s hol di ngs

t hat t her e wer e no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons, summar y j udgment

shoul d not be gr ant ed i n Rosado' s f avor as wel l . At Pl ai nt i f f s'

r equest , t he di st r i ct cour t al l owed compl i ance t hr ough a mot i on f or

r econsi der at i on. Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s mot i on f or r econsi der at i on

on Oct ober 7, 2013, and t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed i t on Mar ch 31,

2014. Af t er r eaf f i r mi ng t he concl usi ons i n i t s Sept ember 6, 2013,

or der , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o show how

Rosado vi ol at ed Fer nndez' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s, and t hus i t

di smi ssed al l cl ai ms agai nst Rosado wi t h pr ej udi ce. Thi s t i mel y

appeal f ol l owed.

II. Discussion

A. The Exclusion of Dr. Gaut's Expert Report

Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

excl udi ng Dr . Gaut ' s exper t r epor t - - a r epor t t hey cl ai m was

necessary i n or der t o rebut Def endant s' al l egat i on t hat Fer nndez

r eached f or Rosado' s f i r ear m- - because t her e was no f i r mdi scover y

f ai l t o honor Mi r anda v. Ar i zona, 384 U. S. 436 ( 1966) . " ) .

-13-


14/33

deadl i ne, and, even i f t her e was, t hei r f ai l ur e t o t i mel y di scl ose

t he r epor t was excusabl e due t o Def endant s' di l at or y t act i cs. We

di sagr ee.

"A di st r i ct cour t has wi de di scret i on i n choosi ng

sanct i ons f or di scover y vi ol at i ons. " Samaan v. St . J oseph Hosp. ,

670 F. 3d 21, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . When t he vi ol at i on i ncl udes

bel at ed i dent i f i cat i on of exper t s or t he di scl osur e of t hei r

opi ni ons, "one cust omary r emedy i s pr ecl usi on. " Genereux v.

Rayt heon Co. , 754 F. 3d 51, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n det er mi ni ng

whether such a remedy i s appr opr i ate, we appl y a def erent i al abuse

of di scret i on st andar d, gr ant i ng t he di st r i ct cour t "consi der abl e

l eeway. " Young v. Gor don, 330 F. 3d 76, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; see

al so Gener eux, 754 F. 3d at 59- 60; R. W. I nt ' l Cor p. v. Wel ch Foods,

I nc. , 937 F. 2d 11, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( "I n t he or di nar y cour se of

ci vi l l i t i gat i on, ' [ t ] he choi ce of sanct i ons f or f ai l i ng t o compl y

wi t h a cour t or der l i es wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t , and we may not

l i ght l y di stur b a deci s i on t o di smi ss. ' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Vel zquez- Ri ver a v. Sea- Land Ser v. , I nc. , 920 F. 2d 1072,

1075 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ) . I n conduct i ng t hi s appel l ee- f r i endl y

r evi ew, we consi der t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. Gener eux,

754 F. 3d at 60.

Her e, cont r ar y t o Pl ai nt i f f s' cont ent i on, t her e was a

f i r m di scover y deadl i ne. On August 8, 2011, t he cour t ent er ed a

case management order set t i ng December 31, 2011 - - l at er ext ended

-14-


15/33

t o Mar ch 31, 2012 - - as t he deadl i ne f or al l di scover y. The

di st r i ct cour t i nt er pr et ed t he use of "al l " t o be br oad enough t o

encompass bot h f act and exper t di scovery, and i n t he absence of any

f ur t her del i neat i on of di scover y deadl i nes, we agr ee wi t h t hi s

i nt er pr et at i on. Pl ai nt i f f s appear t o have i nt er pr et ed t he case

management order t he same way, as t hei r exper t di scl osur es and

r el at ed di scover y wer e t opi cs of conver sat i on t hr oughout t he ent i r e

di scover y per i od. For exampl e, at t he December 1, 2011, st atus

conf er ence, Pl ai nt i f f s i nf or med the magi st r at e j udge and Def endant s

t hat t hey had r et ai ned Dr . Gaut as t hei r pol i ce pr ocedur e/ pr act i ce

exper t but t hat he was st i l l wai t i ng t o r evi ew document s bei ng

sought i n Pl ai nt i f f s' mot i ons t o compel .

Never t hel ess, Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deadl i ne. Fi r st , despi t e t he cour t expl i ci t l y

st at i ng that t he ext ended Mar ch 31, 2012, deadl i ne was f i nal and

t hat "[ n] o f ur t her ext ensi ons wi l l be gr ant ed, " t he par t i es i gnor ed

t hi s mandat e and f i l ed a j oi nt mot i on seeki ng t o ext end t he

deadl i ne unt i l Apr i l 30. Even assumi ng t hi s ext ensi on was

i mpl i ci t l y al l owed, Pl ai nt i f f s i gnor ed t hi s new sel f - i mposed

deadl i ne as wel l , f ai l i ng t o di scl ose t he r epor t unt i l May 21.

Gi ven t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had al r eady war ned t hat a par t y' s

f ai l ur e t o abi de by t he Mar ch 31 deadl i ne "wi l l r esul t i n

pr ecl usi on, " and t hat we have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat a l i t i gant s' s

f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t hei r own sel f - i mposed deadl i nes wei gh

-15-


16/33

heavi l y agai nst t hem, we are hard- pr essed t o f i nd an abuse of

di scr et i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o excl ude t he r epor t . 5

See Ci nt r n- Lorenzo v. Depar t ament o de Asunt os del Consumi dor , 312

F. 3d 522, 526 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "[ Pl ai nt i f f ' s] f ai l ur e t o achi eve

t he t i me l i ne that she her sel f had suggest ed wei ghs heavi l y agai nst

her . ") ; Tower Vent ur es, I nc. v. Ci t y of West f i el d, 296 F. 3d 43, 45-

46 (1st Ci r . 2002) ( " [ A] l i t i gant who i gnor es case- management

deadl i nes does so at hi s per i l . " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

Pl ai nt i f f s count er t hat even i f t he di scl osur e of Dr .

Gaut ' s r epor t was t ar dy, t he f ai l ur e was excusabl e due to

Def endant s' di l at or y t act i cs. But Pl ai nt i f f s ar e unabl e t o back up

t hi s cont ent i on. Fi r st , we note t hat t he subpoenas and document

r equest s wer e di r ect ed at t he PRPD - - a non- par t y - - and not at

Def endant s. Pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o no evi dence t hat Def endant s wer e

cont r ol l i ng t he PRPD' s act i ons or wer e t o bl ame f or t he PRPD' s

r ef usal t o di scl ose document s.

5 Thi s i s especi al l y t r ue when one consi der s t hat t hi s was not t hef i r st t i me Pl ai nt i f f s had i gnor ed t he di str i ct cour t ' s or der sr egar di ng di scover y. Remember , i n Apr i l 2011, t he di st r i ct cour tdeni ed Pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o compel i ni t i al di scl osur es because

Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he cour t ' s meet and conf err equi r ement s. And t hen, i n December 2011, Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t or espond t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nqui r y i nt o t he st at us of t hr eependi ng di scover y mot i ons. I ndeed, i t was not unt i l t he di st r i ctcour t i ssued a show cause or der t hr eat eni ng t o deny al l t hr eemot i ons and t o sancti on Pl ai nt i f f s t hat Pl ai nt i f f s deci ded t or espond.

-16-


17/33

Second, Pl ai nt i f f s i nf or med t he di st r i ct cour t on

December 23, 2011, t hat some of t he request ed document s had been

pr oduced and t hat t he part i es were worki ng t owards t he r est of t he

pr oduct i on. The r ecor d cont ai ns no si gns of a cont i nued di scover y

di sput e bet ween t he par t i es f or al most t hr ee mont hs, despi t e t he

di str i ct cour t i nf or mi ng Pl ai nt i f f s t hat t hey coul d r e- f i l e t hei r

mot i ons to compel i f necessar y. And whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s di d f i l e a

mot i on t o compel on March 27, 2012, t hat mot i on deal t wi t h

di sci pl i nar y and/ or admi ni st r at i ve f i l es of pol i ce of f i cer s who

were not par t i es t o the act i on; t here was no renewed mot i on t o

compel t he document s al l egedl y necessar y f or Dr . Gaut ' s r epor t . 6

Accor di ngl y, even i f Def endant s wer e i nt ent i onal l y del ayi ng t he

di scl osur e of necessary document s, t her e i s not hi ng i n t he recor d

suggest i ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s t i mel y br ought t he i ssue bef or e t he

di st r i ct cour t i n an at t empt t o r emedy t he pr obl em. See Col n-

Mi l l n v. Sear s Roebuck de P. R. , I nc. , 455 F. 3d 30, 39 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) ( "We do not mi ni mi ze t he si gni f i cance of t he def endant s'

di scover y vi ol at i on. Yet t he f ai l ur e . . . does not excuse t he

pl ai nt i f f f r omher f ai l ur e t o br i ng t hi s di scover y vi ol at i on t o t he

at t ent i on of t he di s t r i ct court . . . . " ) .

6 I ndeed, shor t l y af t er t he March 27, 2012, mot i on t o compel wasdeni ed ( and t he cor r espondi ng mot i ons t o quash were gr ant ed) ,Pl ai nt i f f s di scl osed Dr . Gaut ' s exper t r epor t . That Dr . Gaut wasabl e t o compl et e and pr oduce hi s r epor t wi t hout t he sought af t erdocument s suggest s t hat even i f t he document s may have beenhel pf ul , t hey wer e f ar f r om necessar y f or i t s compl et i on.

-17-


18/33

Thi r d, Pl ai nt i f f s never sought t o j ust i f y t he del ayed

di scl osur e. When t hey f i l ed t hei r opposi t i on t o summar y j udgment ,

Pl ai nt i f f s si mpl y r ef er r ed t o t he r epor t as i f t her e was no

t i mel i ness i ssue. Even af t er Def endant s l odged an obj ect i on t o t he

r epor t i n t hei r r epl y t o Pl ai nt i f f s' opposi t i on t o summar y

j udgment , Pl ai nt i f f s r emai ned si l ent . Thi s si l ence l ast ed over a

year - - f r om t he t i me Def endant s f i l ed t hei r r epl y on J une 29,

2012, unt i l Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r mot i on f or r econsi der at i on of

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s order gr ant i ng summary j udgment on Oct ober 7,

2013. I f Def endant s t r ul y were t o bl ame, one woul d have expect ed

a qui ck and f or cef ul r esponse by Pl ai nt i f f s.

I n l i ght of t hese ci r cumst ances, we f i nd no abuse of

di scret i on by t he di st r i ct cour t i n excl udi ng Dr . Gaut ' s exper t

r epor t . I f t he r epor t was real l y as i mpor t ant and necessary as

Pl ai nt i f f s c l ai m, and Def endant s r eal l y wer e at f aul t , Pl ai nt i f f s

woul d have compl i ed wi t h t he di scover y deadl i ne, or pr ompt l y

br ought any i ssues t o t he di st r i ct cour t i f t hey coul d not . The

di st r i ct cour t was wel l wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n concl udi ng t hat

si mpl y i gnor i ng t he deadl i ne and hopi ng nobody woul d not i ce was not

an accept abl e appr oach. See Young, 330 F. 3d at 82- 83 ( hol di ng t hat

"a t i me- speci f i c order was not cur ed by subsequent compl i ance at

[ t he par t y' s] l ei sur e") ; Tower Vent ur es, 296 F. 3d at 45- 46 ( " [ A]

l i t i gant who i gnores case- management deadl i nes does so at hi s

per i l . " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

-18-


19/33

B. The Grant of Summary Judgment

Pl ai nt i f f s next cont end t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

gr ant i ng Def endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment on Pl ai nt i f f s'

Four t h Amendment cl ai ms. We r evi ew t hi s grant de novo, dr awi ng al l

i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f s, t he non-

movi ng part y. Ram r ez- Ll uver as v. Ri ver a- Mer ced, 759 F. 3d 10, 19

( 1st Ci r . 2014) . I n conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew, we r evi ew t he r ecor d

t o det er mi ne whet her t her e i s any genui ne di sput e of mat er i al f act ,

and i f t her e i s not , whet her Def endant s are ent i t l ed t o j udgment as

a mat t er of l aw. I d. ; see al so Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) . Because t he

anal ysi s i s di f f er ent f or t he t wo cl asses of Def endant s - - Of f i cer

Rosado on t he one hand and t he Super vi sor y Def endants on t he ot her

- - and f or t he t wo al l eged Four t h Amendment vi ol at i ons - -

Fer nndez' s unconst i t ut i onal ar r est and Rosado' s use of excessi ve

f or ce - - we addr ess each separat el y.

1. Officer Rosado

i. The Arrest

The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t here was no Four t h

Amendment vi ol at i on because " t he f act s and ci r cumst ances wi t hi n

Rosado' s knowl edge woul d have l ed a pr udent person i nt o bel i evi ng

t hat Fer nndez commi t t ed a cr i me. " I n comi ng t o t hi s concl usi on,

t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t her e was probabl e cause t o ar r est

Fer nndez f or t wo i ndependent cr i mes: ( 1) gr abbi ng Rosado' s f i r ear m

-19-


20/33

and at t empt i ng t o pul l i t out of i t s hol st er ; and ( 2) obst r uct i ng

pol i ce act i vi t y by r est r i ct i ng access t o t he School .

Regar di ng t he f i r st - - gr abbi ng and at t empt i ng t o r emove

Rosado' s f i r ear m - - we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat such an

act woul d const i t ut e pr obabl e cause t o ar r est Fernndez. However ,

we cannot accept t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat t hi s

mat er i al f act was not i n di sput e. To hel p st r eaml i ne t he summar y

j udgment process and cr eat e a si mpl i f i ed and easy way t o navi gat e

t he r ecor d, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s l ocal r ul es r equi r e a mot i on f or

summary j udgment t o "be suppor t ed by a separat e, shor t , and conci se

st at ement of mat er i al f act s, set f or t h i n number ed par agr aphs, as

t o whi ch t he movi ng part y cont ends t here i s no genui ne i ssue of

mat er i al f act t o be t r i ed. " D. P. R. R. 56( b) . The par t y opposi ng

summary j udgment , meanwhi l e, must "submi t wi t h i t s opposi t i on a

separ at e, shor t , and conci se st at ement of mat er i al f act s" whi ch

"shal l admi t , deny or qual i f y t he f act s suppor t i ng t he mot i on f or

summary j udgment " and "support each deni al or qual i f i cat i on by a

r ecor d ci t at i on. " D. P. R. R. 56( c) . Her e, Par agr aph 12 of

Def endant s' st at ement of uncont est ed mat er i al f act s st at ed t hat

" [ w] hen Agent J ennet t e Rosado- Par r i l l a ( "Rosado" ) was goi ng t o wal k

by t he gat e, Fer nndez gr abbed her r egul at i on f i r ear m, t r i ed t o

pul l i t f r omt he hol st er and t ol d Rosado t hat she coul d not go i n. "

Pl ai nt i f f s emphat i cal l y deni ed t hi s f act i n t hei r count er -

st at ement , st at i ng as f ol l ows:

-20-


21/33

I t i s pl ai nt i f f Val er i e Fer nndez' t est i monyt hat t hi s never happened. Accor di ng t oVal er i e, def endant J eanet t e Rosado spoke t oher i n a rough manner ( "as i f she wasannoyed" ) and pushed her asi de, Val er i e tol dRosado not t o speak t o her i n such a rough

t one, Rosado answered t hat she ( Rosado) coul dspeak t o her ( Val er i e) i n what ever way shef el t , Val er i e compl ai ned agai n about t he roughmanner i n whi ch Rosado was adr essi ng [ si c] herand i t was t hen t hat Rosado shoved Val er i eagai nst a wal l and pl aced a handcuf f on herl ef t wr i st . Thus, accor di ng t o Val er i eFernndez, she was an i nnocent byst ander whonever t ouched def endant Rosado nor at t emptedt o gr ab her gun, and t hat i t was Rosado whoexer ci sed excessi ve f or ce and subsequent l yarr est ed her wi t hout havi ng any reason t o doso.

As suppor t , Pl ai nt i f f s ci t ed t o t he speci f i c pages of Fer nndez' s

deposi t i on where her account of t he encount er coul d be f ound.

Unl i ke t he di st r i ct cour t , we bel i eve t hi s ci t at i on was

adequate t o deny the al l eged "uncont est ed" f act as requi r ed by

Local Rul e 56. Fer nndez was asked i n her deposi t i on t o descr i be

t he event s, and Fernndez descr i bed what happened f r omher poi nt of

vi ew. She never ment i oned r eachi ng f or Rosado' s gun, and nowhere

di d Def endant s' counsel ask Fer nndez i f she di d. Gi ven

Fer nndez' s compl et e si l ence on t he i ssue, i t i s possi bl e t o r ead

t he deposi t i on t est i mony as descr i bi ng a ver si on of event s i n whi ch

Fer nndez never r eached f or t he gun. I ndeed, because Pl ai nt i f f s

are the ones opposi ng summary j udgment , and al l i nf erences must be

dr awn i n t hei r f avor , t hat i s exact l y how t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

-21-


22/33

have i nt er pr et ed i t . 7 See, e. g. , Asoci aci n de Per i odi st as de P. R.

v. Muel l er , 529 F. 3d 52, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he

appr opr i at e st andar d i s " whet her pl ai nt i f f ' s [ Four t h Amendment ]

cl ai m sur vi ves i n l i ght of al l t he uncont est ed f acts and any

cont est ed f acts l ooked at i n t he pl ai nt i f f ' s f avor " ( al t er at i on and

emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Cal vi v.

Knox Cnt y. , 470 F. 3d 422, 426 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( "The cour t must dr aw

al l r easonabl e i nf er ences f r om t he assembl ed f act s i n t he l i ght

most hospi t abl e t o t he nonmovant . " ) . We concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat

Par agr aph 12 was adequatel y deni ed, t hus cr eat i ng a genui ne di sput e

of mat er i al f act . I n l i ght of t hi s di sput e, any pr obabl e cause

f i ndi ng cannot , at t hi s st age of t he l i t i gat i on, be based on

Fer nndez r eachi ng f or Rosado' s gun.

As t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s second basi s f or gr ant i ng

summary j udgment - - t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed t o bel i eve t hat

Fer nndez was obst r uct i ng pol i ce act i vi t y by rest r i ct i ng access t o

t he school - - we di sagr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he r ecor d

cont ai ns t he undi sput ed f act s necessar y t o suppor t a pr obabl e cause

det er mi nat i on. An of f i cer has pr obabl e cause t o ar r est an

i ndi vi dual "i f , at t he moment of t he ar r est , t he f act s and

7 To be sur e, a bet t er pr act i ce woul d have been f or Pl ai nt i f f s t osubmi t al ong wi t h t hei r opposi t i on t o summary j udgment a swornst at ement f r om Fer nndez expl i ci t l y denyi ng ever r eachi ng f orRosado' s gun. That a di f f erent appr oach pr obabl y shoul d have beent aken, however , does not mean that t he appr oach act ual l y t aken wasi nsuf f i ci ent .

-22-


23/33

ci r cumst ances wi t hi n t he rel evant act ors' knowl edge and of whi ch

t hey had r easonabl y r el i abl e i nf ormat i on were adequate t o warr ant

a pr udent per son i n bel i evi ng t hat t he obj ect of hi s suspi ci ons had

per pet r at ed or was poi sed t o per pet r at e an of f ense. " Roche v. J ohn

Hancock Mut . Li f e I ns. Co. , 81 F. 3d 249, 254 ( 1st Ci r . 1996)

( emphasi s added) ; see al so Devenpeck v. Al f ord, 543 U. S. 146, 152

( 2004) ( "Whet her pr obabl e cause exi st s depends upon t he reasonabl e

concl usi on t o be dr awn f r om t he f act s known t o t he ar r est i ng

of f i cer at t he t i me of t he ar r est . ") .

Her e, t aki ng i nt o account t he admi t t ed por t i ons of

Def endant s' st at ement of uncont est ed mat er i al f act s, t he recor d

ci t at i ons pr ovi ded i n suppor t of t hem, and maki ng al l i nf er ences i n

Pl ai nt i f f s' f avor , Rosado was awar e of t he f ol l owi ng f act s at t he

t i me of Fer nndez' s ar r est : ( 1) a number of uni dent i f i ed st udent s

wer e thr owi ng obj ect s f r om t he School i nt o t he st r eet separ at i ng

t he School f r om t he housi ng pr oj ect ; ( 2) when t he PRPD ent er ed t he

School , al l st udent s - - bot h t hose who wer e t hr owi ng obj ect s and

t hose who were not - - began r unni ng; ( 3) Rosado came upon Fernndez

st andi ng behi nd a cl osed gat e bl ocki ng ent r y i nt o the School ' s

hal l way; ( 4) Fer nndez opened t he gate upon Rosado i nst r uct i ng her

t o do so. These f act s, wi t h not hi ng more, do not suppor t any

cri me, l et al one t he al l eged cri me of r est r i ct i ng pol i ce acti vi t y

by rest r i ct i ng access t o the School , and t hus pr obabl e cause f or an

ar r est woul d be l acki ng.

-23-


24/33

The di st r i ct cour t and Def endant s emphasi ze, however ,

t hat t here was more. They poi nt out t hat Fernndez admi t t ed

cl osi ng the gat e, and by cl osi ng t he gat e, Fer nndez was

obst r uct i ng t he i nvest i gat i on, t hus cr eat i ng pr obabl e cause f or her

arr est . Thi s woul d no doubt be t r ue i f Rosado knew t hat Fer nndez

was t he one who cl osed t he gat e. But whi l e we now know t hat

Fer nndez cl osed t he gat e, t he recor d i s si l ent as t o whet her or

not Rosado knew t hat f act at t he t i me she arr est ed Fer nndez. See

Roche, 81 F. 3d at 254 ( hol di ng t hat pr obabl e cause exi st s where "at

t he moment of t he ar r est , t he f act s and ci r cumst ances wi t hi n t he

r el evant act or s' knowl edge . . . wer e adequat e t o war r ant a pr udent

per son i n bel i evi ng t hat t he obj ect of hi s suspi ci ons had

perpet r at ed or was poi sed t o perpet r ate an of f ense" ( emphasi s

added) ) . The onl y evi dence ci t ed by Def endant s t o est abl i sh t hat

Fer nndez cl osed t he gate i s Fer nndez' s own t est i mony. Thi s

af t er - t he- f act admi ssi on, however , does not hi ng t o suppor t t he

pr obabl e cause det ermi nat i on because i t does not pr ove Rosado' s

cont emporaneous knowl edge of t hat f act . 8 See i d. ( expl ai ni ng t hat

8 At or al ar gument , Def endant s r epeat edl y di r ect ed us t o Rosado' si nt er r ogat or y responses, speci f i cal l y her answer t o I nt er r ogat or y3, where Rosado st at ed t hat she "had been f ol l owi ng t wo ot herof f i cer s and one of t hem t ol d a f emal e st udent t o open a gat e t hat

she was t r yi ng t o cl ose i n or der t o bl ock t he access. " Had t hi sf act and cor r espondi ng ci t at i on been i ncl uded i n Def endant s'st atement of uncont est ed mater i al f act s, t he out come t oday may verywel l have been di f f er ent , si nce t hi s f act coul d suggest t hat Rosadol ear ned f r om t he ot her of f i cer s t hat Fer nndez cl osed t he gat e.See Mor el l i v. Webst er , 552 F. 3d 12, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( expl ai ni ngt hat an of f i cer may "act [ ] upon appar ent l y t r ust wor t hy i nf or mat i on"

-24-


25/33

t he exi st ence of pr obabl e cause "i s not t o be under t aken f r om t he

per spect i ve of hi ndsi ght but f r omt he per spect i ve of a hypot het i cal

' r easonabl e man' st andi ng i n t he repor t i ng per son' s shoes at t he

t i me when t hat person act ed. " ) . Based on t he summar y j udgment

r ecor d, t her ef or e, a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act exi st s as t o

whet her or not Rosado knew t hat Fernndez cl osed t he gat e, and thus

i t was i nappr opr i at e f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o concl ude as a mat t er

of l aw t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed and no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on

occur r ed. See Asoci aci n de Per i odi st as de P. R. , 529 F. 3d at 56

( "Rever sal i s r equi r ed i f ' t her e exi st ed any f act ual i ssues t hat

needed t o be r esol ved bef or e t he l egal i ssues coul d be deci ded. ' "

( quot i ng Sabr ee v. Uni t ed Bhd. of Car pent er s & J oi ner s Local No.

33, 921 F. 2d 396, 399 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ) .

Thi s i s not , however , t he end of our di scussi on.

Def endant s posi t t hat even i f Rosado di d vi ol ate Fer nndez' s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s, summar y j udgment was st i l l appr opr i at e

because Rosado i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. We di sagr ee.

"Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s a doct r i ne t hat shi el ds gover nment

of f i ci al s per f or mi ng di scr et i onar y f unct i ons f r om l i abi l i t y f or

ci vi l damages ' i nsof ar as t hei r conduct does not vi ol at e cl ear l y

t o "concl ude t hat a cr i me has been or i s about t o be commi t t ed andt hat t he suspect i s i mpl i cat ed i n i t s commi ssi on" ) ; Roche, 81 F. 3dat 254. Def endant s, however , f ai l ed t o i ncl ude ei t her t he f act ort he ci t at i on, t hus pr event i ng Pl ai nt i f f s t he oppor t uni t y to deny orr ebut Rosado' s cl ai m of knowl edge and t o pr esent any cont r ar yr ecor d suppor t .

-25-


26/33

est abl i shed st at ut or y or const i t ut i onal r i ght s of whi ch a

r easonabl e person woul d have known. ' " Est at e of Bennet t v.

Wai nwr i ght , 548 F. 3d 155, 167 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Har l ow v.

Fi t zger al d, 457 U. S. 800, 818 ( 1982) ) . I n assessi ng qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y, we appl y a t wo- pr ong anal ysi s. Gl i k v. Cunni f f e, 655

F. 3d 78, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Fi r st , we must deci de "whet her t he

f act s al l eged or shown by t he pl ai nt i f f make out a vi ol at i on of a

const i t ut i onal r i ght . " I d. ( quot i ng Mal donado v. Font anes, 568

F. 3d 263, 269 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Second, assumi ng a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on exi st s, we det er mi ne

"whet her t he r i ght was ' cl ear l y est abl i shed' at t he t i me of t he

def endant ' s al l eged vi ol at i on. " I d. ( quot i ng Mal donado, 568 F. 3d

at 269) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s second st ep i s

f ur t her di vi ded i nt o t wo i nqui r i es:

( a) whet her t he l egal cont our s of t he r i ght i n

quest i on wer e suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t hat ar easonabl e of f i cer woul d have underst ood t hatwhat he [ or she] was doi ng vi ol at ed t he r i ght ,and ( b) whet her i n t he par t i cul ar f act ualcont ext of t he case, a r easonabl e of f i cerwoul d have underst ood t hat hi s [ or her ]conduct vi ol at ed t he r i ght .

Ml odzi nski v. Lewi s, 648 F. 3d 24, 32- 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Not abl y,

due t o a somewhat r ecent change i n t he l aw, we may address t hese

i ssues i n any or der . Pear son v. Cal l ahan, 555 U. S. 223, 236( 2009) .

As di scussed above, t here ar e genui ne di sput es over

mat er i al f act s whi ch pr event us f r om eval uat i ng whet her Rosado

-26-


27/33

vi ol at ed Fer nndez' s r i ght s. Those same di sput ed f act s al so

pr event us f r om eval uat i ng t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y quest i on. Even

assumi ng pr obabl e cause f or Fer nndez' s ar r est was l acki ng, t hus

sat i sf yi ng t he f i r st r equi r ement f or qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, we woul d

t hen l ook to whet her t he r i ght was "cl ear l y est abl i shed" at t he

t i me of t he vi ol at i on. Ther e i s l i t t l e quest i on t hat i t i s cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw t hat an i ndi vi dual cannot be ar r est ed absent

pr obabl e cause. See, e. g. , Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U. S. 626, 630

( 2003) ( per cur i am) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mer cedes- De La Cr uz, ___ F. 3d

___, 2015 WL 3378255, at *6 ( 1st Ci r . May 26, 2015) . However ,

whet her or not a reasonabl e of f i cer , si mi l ar l y si t uat ed, woul d have

under st ood t hat Rosado' s act i ons vi ol at ed t hi s r i ght i s a f act -

i nt ensi ve quest i on. I t i nvol ves under st andi ng what Rosado knew as

she approached t he gat e and exact l y what t r anspi r ed upon Fernndez

openi ng i t . These ar e quest i ons f or a f act f i nder , and unt i l t hey

are answered, we are unabl e t o det ermi ne, as a mat t er of l aw,

whet her Rosado' s " conduct was ' so def i ci ent t hat no reasonabl e

of f i cer coul d have made t he same choi ce[ ] under t he

ci r cumst ances. ' " Est at e of Bennet t , 548 F. 3d at 168 ( quot i ng

Napi er v. Wi ndham, 187 F. 3d 177, 183 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) ; see al so

Mal donado, 568 F. 3d at 272.

Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of j udgment

agai nst Rosado on Pl ai nt i f f s' Four t h Amendment unconst i t ut i onal

ar r est cl ai m must be rever sed and r emanded f or t r i al .

-27-


28/33

ii. The Use of Force

Pl ai nt i f f s ar e not as f or t unat e r egar di ng t hei r excessi ve

f orce cl ai m. "Our Four t h Amendment j ur i sprudence has l ong

r ecogni zed t hat t he r i ght t o make an ar r est or i nvest i gat or y st op

necessar i l y car r i es wi t h i t t he r i ght t o use some degr ee of

physi cal coer ci on or t hr eat t her eof t o ef f ect i t . " Gr aham v.

Connor , 490 U. S. 386, 396 ( 1989) . Accor di ngl y, t o est abl i sh a

Four t h Amendment excessi ve f or ce vi ol at i on, Pl ai nt i f f s must show

not onl y that Rosado empl oyed f orce i n ar r est i ng Fer nndez, but

al so t hat t hat l evel of f or ce was obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e under

t he ci r cumst ances. See Asoci aci n de Per i odi st as de P. R. , 529 F. 3d

at 59. I n conduct i ng t hi s anal ysi s, t her e i s no "mechani cal

appl i cat i on" f or us t o f ol l ow. Gr aham, 490 U. S. at 396. I nst ead,

we must pay

car ef ul at t ent i on t o t he f act s and

ci r cumst ances of each par t i cul ar case,i ncl udi ng t he sever i t y of t he cr i me at i ssue,whet her t he suspect poses an i mmedi at e threatt o t he saf et y of t he of f i cer s or ot her s, andwhet her he [ or she] i s act i vel y r esi st i ngar r est or at t empt i ng t o evade ar r est byf l i ght .

I d. We j udge t he "r easonabl eness" of an of f i cer ' s act i ons f r omt he

"per spect i ve of a r easonabl e of f i cer on t he scene, r at her t han wi t h

t he 20/ 20 vi si on of hi ndsi ght . " I d. ; see al so Cal vi , 470 F. 3d at428.

Assumi ng t he encount er occur r ed as Fer nndez descr i bes - -

as we must i n t he summar y j udgment cont ext - - Fer nndez was

-28-


29/33

seemi ngl y ar r est ed f or , at best , obst r uct i ng a pol i ce i nvest i gat i on

and/ or di sor der l y conduct by "di sr espect i ng" Rosado and t al ki ng

back t o her . Ei t her , obvi ousl y, i s not a sever e cr i me, and - - at

l east based on t hi s ver si on of event s - - Fer nndez never posed an

i mmedi ate t hr eat t o Rosado or ot hers. As such, onl y a mi ni mal

l evel of f orce by Rosado woul d be reasonabl e under t he

ci r cumst ances. Yet even wi t h t hi s l ow t hr eshol d, Pl ai nt i f f s ar e

unabl e t o est abl i sh a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. I n ef f ectuat i ng

t he ar r est , Rosado shoved Fer nndez f ace- f i r st agai nst a wal l and

pr oceed t o handcuf f her l ef t wr i st . 9 Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he

r ecor d t hat t hi s t echni que devi at ed f r omst andar d pol i ce pr act i ce.

See Cal vi , 470 F. 3d at 428 ( "St andar d pol i ce pr act i ce [ i n Knox

Count y, Mai ne] cal l ed f or cuf f i ng an ar r est ee' s hands behi nd her

back and [ t he of f i cer ' s] deci si on not t o devi at e f r omt hi s pr act i ce

was a j udgment cal l , pur e and si mpl e. . . . That i s t he end of t he

st or y. ") . And, even i f i t di d, t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed

t hat " [ n] ot ever y push or shove, even i f i t may l at er seem

unnecessar y i n t he peace of a j udge' s chamber s, vi ol at es t he Four t h

Amendment . " Gr aham, 490 U. S. at 396 ( quot i ng J ohnson v. Gl i ck, 481

F. 2d 1028, 1033 ( 2d Ci r . 1973) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks) .

Rosado' s shove of Fernndez may have been unnecessary, but i t was

not unr easonabl e.

9 Rosado di d not handcuf f Fer nndez' s r i ght wr i st becauseFer nndez wr i ggl ed f r ee and sl i pped t hr ough t he gate bef ore Rosadocoul d do so.

-29-


30/33

Si mi l ar l y, t here was no Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on when

Rosado pul l ed Fer nndez' s ar m, ef f ect i vel y cr eat i ng a t ug- of - war

bet ween Rosado and t he ot her st udent s. Fernndez was at t empt i ng t o

escape arr est , and Rosado had a r i ght t o pr event Fer nndez f r om

doi ng so. We see not hi ng unr easonabl e wi t h Rosado' s r ef usal t o l et

go of Fer nndez or her deci si on t o pul l Fer nndez away f r om t he

ot her st udent s t r yi ng t o hel p her escape. See i d. ( expl ai ni ng t hat

whet her an i ndi vi dual i s "act i vel y r esi st i ng ar r est or at t empt i ng

t o evade ar r est " i s a rel evant consi der at i on i n t he use- of - f or ce

cal cul us) .

Because Rosado never used excessi ve f orce dur i ng

Fer nndez' s ar r est , t her e was no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on.

Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y ent er ed j udgment f or

Rosado on thi s cl ai m.

2. The Supervisory Defendants

Though Pl ai nt i f f s seemt o al so be appeal i ng t he ent r y of

summar y j udgment i n t he Super vi sory Def endant s' f avor , Pl ai nt i f f s

of f er no ar gument wi t h r espect t o t hem. Rat her , Pl ai nt i f f s' br i ef

ment i ons D az onl y i n t he cont ext of pr ovi di ng t he f act ual

backgr ound, and i t i s compl et el y si l ent as t o Fi guer oa and Cal der o.

Even when Def endants comment ed on t hi s shor t comi ng i n t hei r

opposi t i on br i ef , Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o addr ess the i ssue i n r epl y.

We have hel d t i me and t i me agai n that " J udges are not expect ed t o

be mi ndr eader s" and t hat "a l i t i gant has an obl i gat i on ' t o spel l

-30-


31/33

out i t s ar gument s squar el y and di st i nct l y, ' or el se f or ever hol d

i t s peace. " Ri ver a- Gmez v. de Cast r o, 843 F. 2d 631, 635 ( 1st Ci r .

1988) ( quot i ng Pat er son- Lei t ch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Whol esal e El ec.

Co. , 840 F. 2d 985, 990 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) ; see al so Zanni no, 895 F. 2d

at 17. Pl ai nt i f f s' f ai l ur e t o make any ar gument her e - - l et al one

a devel oped one - - i s f at al t o t hei r cl ai m. See Zanni no, 895 F. 2d

at 17 ( " [ W] e see no reason t o abandon t he set t l ed appel l at e r ul e

t hat i ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed by

some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. " ) .

Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f s appeal as t o t he Super vi sor y Def endant s i s

wai ved.

C. The Puerto Rico Civil Code Claims

Fi nal l y, Pl ai nt i f f s obj ect t o t he di s t r i ct court ' s

deci si on t o decl i ne suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over t hei r cl ai ms

under t he Puer t o Ri co Ci vi l Code. When f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on i s

pr emi sed on a f eder al cl ai m and t hose f eder al cl ai ms ar e l at er

di smi ssed, a di st r i ct cour t has t he opt i on of decl i ni ng t o exer ci se

i t s suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over t he r emai ni ng st at e l aw cl ai ms.

28 U. S. C. 1367( c) ( 3) ; see al so, e. g. , Desj ar di ns v. Wi l l ar d, 777

F. 3d 43, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . I f "t he di smi ssal of t he l i nchpi n

f eder al cl ai m pr oves t o have been i mpr ovi dent , [ however , ] t he

st at e- l aw cl ai ms r out i nel y ar e r ei nst at ed. " Van Wagner Bos. , LLC

v. Davey, 770 F. 3d 33, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; see al so Gr aj al es v.

P. R. Por t s Aut h. , 682 F. 3d 40, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . We see no

-31-


32/33

r eason t o devi at e f r om t hat pr act i ce her e, so we i nst r uct t he

di st r i ct cour t , on r emand, t o r ei nst at e Pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms agai nst

Rosado under t he Puert o Ri co Ci vi l Code.

III. Conclusion

The pur pose of summar y j udgment i s t o enabl e a cour t " t o

pi er ce t he boi l er pl at e of t he pl eadi ngs and assay t he par t i es'

pr oof i n or der t o det er mi ne whet her t r i al i s act ual l y requi r ed. "

Acost a v. Ames Dep' t St or es, I nc. , 386 F. 3d 5, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( quot i ng Wynne v. Tuf t s Uni v. Sch. of Med. , 976 F. 2d 791, 794 ( 1st

Ci r . 1992) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n empl oyi ng t hi s

usef ul and vi t al t ool , t he di str i ct cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n i t s

di scr et i on i n excl udi ng Dr . Gaut ' s exper t r epor t . I t al so

cor r ect l y concl uded t hat Def endant s wer e ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a

mat t er of l aw on Pl ai nt i f f s' excessi ve f or ce cl ai m. Wi t h r espect

t o Pl ai nt i f f s' Four t h Amendment unconst i t ut i onal ar r est cl ai m

agai nst Rosado, however , t he di st r i ct cour t went t oo f ar .

Pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi ded j ust enough evi dence t o est abl i sh a genui ne

di sput e over t wo key mat er i al f act s - - whet her Fer nndez r eached

f or Rosado' s gun and whet her Rosado knew Fernndez cl osed the gat e

bar r i ng ent r ance t o t he School hal l way. The r esol ut i on of t hese

di sput ed f act s must be deci ded by a f act f i nder at an ensui ng t r i al .

And, because some of Pl ai nt i f f s' f eder al cl ai ms are bei ng

r ei nst at ed, t he st at e l aw cl ai ms must be r esur r ect ed as wel l .

These f ur t her proceedi ngs onl y appl y t o Rosado, t hough, because

-32-


33/33

Pl ai nt i f f s have wai ved any appeal of t he ent r y of summary j udgment

agai nst t he Super vi sory Def endant s.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Each

par t y shal l bear i t s own cost s.

33

Documents

Fernandez-Salicrup v. Figueroa-Sancha, 1st Cir. (2015)