Rodriguez-Cirilo v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 06 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-1306,RODRIGUEZ-CIRILO,96-1306
• Parties: Celso, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Juan B. GARCIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 50

115 F.3d 50

Celso RODRIGUEZ-CIRILO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Juan B. GARCIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-1306.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard Nov. 6, 1996.

Decided June 2, 1997.

Kevin G. Little, Fresno, CA, with whom Law Offices of David Efrn, San Juan, PR, was on brief, for appellants.

Edgardo Rodrguez-Quilichini, Assistant Solicitor General, Department of Justice, San Juan, PR, with whom Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor General, San Juan, PR, and Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy Solicitor General, Guaynabo, PR, were on brief, for appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and DiCLERICO, Jr., ^* District Judge.

TORRUELLA, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants are six family members, one of whom, Celso Rodrguez-Cirilo ("Celso"), was the victim of a stabbing. Celso was stabbed by his brother, Francisco Rodrguez-Cirilo ("Francisco"), who is not a party to the suit. The family members filed a civil rights damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) against two officers of the The district court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that a due process right protected under section 1983 was violated by the officers' failure to prevent private violence, and also held that plaintiffs could not establish causation. Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we find that the district court's treatment of the causation issue correctly identifies a sufficient ground for granting summary judgment to the defendants. We therefore do not reach the nettlesome legal question of whether, in light of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989), a police officer's knowing refusal to carry out the express terms of a non-discretionary detention order can be deemed an "affirmative act" that, by increasing the risk of private harm to those sought to be protected by the order, may trigger due process concerns. Cf. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 201, 109 S.Ct. at 1006; Frances- Coln v. Ramrez, 107 F.3d 62, 64 (1st Cir.1997) (discussing the limited scope for relief under section 1983 where "the government employee, in the rare and exceptional case, affirmatively acts to increase the threat of harm to the claimant"); Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056, 1064 (1st Cir.1997) ("In a creation of risk situation, where the ultimate harm is caused by a third party, courts must be careful to distinguish between conventional torts and constitutional violations.").

Puerto Rico Police Department alleging that the officers' failure to enforce a temporary detention order against Francisco caused the injury to Celso and thus violated his constitutional rights. ¹

BACKGROUND

In the summary judgment context, we relate all material facts in genuine dispute in the light most favorable to the party resisting summary judgment, here the plaintiffs. Sanchez v. Alvarado, 101 F.3d 223, 225 n. 1 (1st Cir.1996). On March 16, 1994, Jorge Rodrguez-Nieves ("Jorge"), a nephew of both Celso and Francisco who is not a party in the instant suit, filed a petition pursuant to the Mental Health Code of Puerto Rico ("Law 116"), ² to have his uncle Francisco involuntarily detained for psychiatric examination. The petition stated that Francisco presented a danger to himself and others and had threatened to kill with a sharp object, such as a machete or a knife. On March 17, 1994, a San Juan municipal court judge responded to the petition by issuing an order that Francisco be detained for examination. The temporary detention order authorizes a law enforcement officer to detain the subject--with the assistance of health care personnel if necessary--and to take him to a psychiatric institution where he can be examined, and where he cannot be held for more than 24 hours. If the examining doctor concludes that detention for any longer period or treatment of the subject is required, then that doctor must notify the petitioner, who must then notify the court. The temporary detention order under Law 116 does not explicitly give police officers any discretion with regard to enforcement. ³

On the same day that the order was issued, Jorge, along with two of Francisco's siblings (but not Celso), went to a police station to have the order enforced. The defendants were at the police station and assumed the task of enforcing the order, calling on paramedics for assistance. Later that day, the defendant police officers, the paramedics, and the three family members found Francisco at a local establishment. Francisco refused to go with the officers, stating that he was already being treated at a veteran's hospital. The officers then failed to carry out the order, despite the efforts of the family members to convince the officers that Francisco was dangerous. Before departing, the officers told the family members that they themselves should take Francisco to a veteran's hospital for treatment, which is No further legal steps were taken to obtain another detention order, although the plaintiffs and other family members assert that they made further informal requests to the police to take Francisco into custody. Francisco was ultimately never taken to a hospital for examination or treatment. On April 6, 1994, nearly three weeks after the defendants' failure to carry out the temporary detention order, the injury giving rise to this damages suit occurred. Francisco stabbed his brother Celso while Celso was at their mother's house for a visit. Celso had argued with Francisco about getting their mother some water and then stood out on a balcony; a few minutes later Francisco returned and stabbed Celso in the chest with a knife. Celso suffered injuries to his chest and to his respiratory and digestive systems.

contrary to the stated procedure under Law 116.

Plaintiffs brought actions for damages under both section 1983 and Puerto Rico tort provisions. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the section 1983 suit and dismissed the state tort claims without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Serrano-Cruz v. DFI Puerto Rico, Inc., 109 F.3d 23, 24 (1st Cir.1997).

The essential elements of a claim under section 1983 are: First, that the defendants acted under color of state law; and second, that the defendants' conduct worked a denial of rights secured by the Constitution or by federal law. Martnez v. Coln, 54 F.3d 980, 984 (1st Cir.1995). To satisfy the second element, plaintiffs must show that the defendants' conduct was the cause in fact of the alleged deprivation. See Gutierrez-Rodrguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 559 (1st Cir.1989). The issue of causation of damages in a section 1983 suit is based on basic notions of tort causation. See Maldonado Santiago v. Velazquez Garca, 821 F.2d 822, 831 (1st Cir.1987) ("Section 1983 imposes a causation requirement similar to that of ordinary tort law."). In applying basic tort principles to the facts raised by a particular section 1983 claim, the causation requirement may be fleshed out with reference to state law tort principles. Gutierrez-Rodrguez, 882 F.2d at 561.

As discussed in the decision below, plaintiffs cannot establish that the conduct of the defendants, in not enforcing the temporary detention order, was the legal cause of an attack occurring much later. See Rodrguez-Cirilo v. Garca, 908 F.Supp. 85, 91 (D.P.R.1995). The concept of proximate causation restricts tort liability to those whose conduct, beyond falling within the infinite causal web leading to an injury, was a legally significant cause. The passage of time can certainly reduce the legal significance of a particular contributing act. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433 (1965) (lapse of time a factor to be considered in determining whether a contributing factor is substantial).

The remoteness in time of the harm in this case precludes a finding of proximate causation. Although Francisco committed the kind of violence mentioned in the petition for a detention order, the space of over two weeks that passed after the officers' failure to detain Francisco, during which time family members did not attempt to obtain another detention order, renders his later act of violence too remote to impose liability on the officers. Cf. Martnez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285, 100 S.Ct. 553, 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980) (murder committed by parolee five months after release "too remote" a consequence to hold parole board liable under section 1983); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433 (1965). Although the stabbing occurred at the address named in the original petition, and although the police officers may have had some indication that Celso would be at danger from an attack by Francisco, ⁴ given What further persuades us that the causation issue in this case is dispositive is that even if Francisco had been taken to a hospital on March 17, 1994, for examination, appellants have not shown that an examination performed on that day would have prevented the violent attack, spurred by an argument, on April 6, 1996. The temporary detention period was itself limited to a maximum of twenty-four hours. Appellants offered no competent evidence that could have supported a finding that an examination in Francisco's particular case would have prevented the later attack. Appellants rely on a clinical psychologist's signed statement asserting that Francisco's "personality disorder" caused the stabbing, and that, had Francisco been detained on March 17, 1994, he would have received effective treatment that would have prevented the stabbing. This statement, based solely on information collected through conversations with Francisco's relations and formed without any direct examination of either Francisco or of his medical records, is not enough to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment and does not create a triable issue of material fact as to causation. ⁵ "The nonmoving party must...