Martinez-rodrfguez v. Guevara

Decision Date01 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08-1086.,08-1086.
Citation597 F.3d 414
PartiesWilfredo MARTiNEZ-RODRfGUEZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Rogelio E. GUEVARA, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration; Jerome Harris, Special Agent in Charge, Caribbean Field Division; Enrique Nieves, Group Supervisor; Aramis Quinones, Special Agent; Nelson Gonzalez, Special Agent; Francisco J. alvarez, Special Agent; John F. Kanig, Special Agent, Defendants, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Luis Rafael Rivera, * for appellant.

Ginette L. Milanes, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Rosa E. Rodriguez-Velez, United States Attorney, Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and German A. Rieckehoff, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, LIPEZ, and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Wilfredo MartinezRodriguez appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment dismissing, on qualified immunity grounds, his claim that several Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agents violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest and prosecution without probable cause. Martinez-Rodriguez claims that several DEA agents provided false and misleading statements to the grand jury and throughout his criminal prosecution with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth in order to manufacture probable cause against him. After a careful review of the record, we find that Martinez-Rodriguez has not made a showing that defendants intentionally or recklessly provided false or misleading statements to support his indictment and arrest on dragrelated charges. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.

I. Background1
A. Underlying Drug Trafficking Investigation

The facts that underlie this appeal arise from a DEA investigation into allegeddrug trafficking activities conducted by several police officers assigned to the Caguas Tactical Operations Unit of the Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD"). On the basis of information provided by a confidential source around December 2000 DEA agents John F. Kanig and Aramis Quinones ("Quiñones") learned that PRPD officer Roberto Martinez-Hernández ("Hernández") was dealing large quantities of drugs. The investigation also revealed that another police officer, Alexis LópezLópez ("López-López"), was supplying heroin to Hernández.

From January to March 2001 and at the behest of the DEA agents, the confidential source conducted two separate heroin purchases from Hernández. The DEA agents also established direct contact with Hernández through an undercover agent, Nelson González ("González"), who posed as a drug trafficker from Texas. González and Hernández also discussed future purchases of heroin.

Although the DEA investigation centered on Hernández's and López-López's drug trafficking activities, its efforts also yielded information that Martinez-Rodriguez, another PRPD officer, had been in contact with both López-López and Hernández. For example, two subpoenas of López-López's cell phone records revealed that López-López and Martinez-Rodriguez had at least twelve telephone communications between February 27, 2001 and March 26, 2001, and that between April 1 2001 and April 24, 2001, López-López called Martinez-Rodriguez thirteen times while Martinez-Rodriguez called LópezLópez five times. Finally, a telephone toll/subscriber analysis of a telephone subscribed to Jose R. Martinez-Hernández revealed three prior telephone communications between Hernández and MartinezRodriguez.

B. The May 14th Meeting

The crucial events for the purposes of the present appeal transpired on May 14 2001, when López-López and Hernández met with undercover agent Gonzalez at the Oyster Bar Restaurant in Isla Verde Puerto Rico. Martinez-Rodriguez accompanied López-López to the Oyster Bar that day. Hernández served as an intermediary between López-López and undercover agent Gonzalez as he introduced López-López to Gonzalez and instructed them to discuss potential drug deals. After this introduction, Hernández, LópezLópez, and Gonzalez discussed future drug transactions which included the possibility of buying heroin to distribute in the United States. The three men discussed how the heroin would be delivered and distributed, its purchase price, and payment methods.

During the meeting, Hernández, LópezLópez, and Gonzalez were seated at the same table. But at least throughout part of the drug-related meeting, MartinezRodriguez was seated at a nearby table. When the meeting ended after approximately two and a half hours, the four men left the restaurant at the same time.

C. Martinez-Rodriguez's Indictment and Filing of His Civil Rights Suit

In the course of a grand jury investigation special agent Quinones testified as to the details of the drug trafficking operation and stated that Martinez-Rodriguez acted as López-López's bodyguard during the May 14th meeting. Martinez-Rodriguez was subsequently indicted and arrested on drug trafficking charges. On August 2, 2002, Martinez-Rodriguez was acquitted following a jury trial. He subsequently filed a civil rights action under

Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66, 71 (1st Cir.2005).

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), against several DEA officials and agents. Martinez-Rodriguez named two group of defendants in his complaint. In the first group of defendants he included DEA officials Rogelio E. Guevara, Chief of Operations of the DEA; Jerome Harris, Special Agent in Charge of the Caribbean Field Division of the DEA; and Enrique Nieves, Group Supervisor and Acting Investigator of the DEA. The second group of defendants included the DEA agents who participated in the drug trafficking investigation, namely, DEA special agents Aramis Quinones, Nelson Gonzalez, Francisco J. Alvarez, and John F. Kanig (collectively, "Defendants").

In his complaint, Martinez-Rodriguez claimed that DEA special agent Quinones knowingly gave false or-misleading testimony before the grand jury in order to establish probable cause for his indictment and arrest. According to Martinez-Rodriguez, the other DEA officials and agents listed as defendants had constructive knowledge of Quinones's false testimony to the grand jury, and they failed to reveal that Martinez-Rodriguez did not participate in the drug-related conversation at the Oyster Bar, resulting in his illegal arrest, without probable cause, in violation of his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Following a few procedural incidents concerning service of process and personal jurisdiction, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing, inter alia, that the complaint failed to state a claim under Bivens for which relief could be granted and that in the alternative they were entitled to qualified immunity. Adopting a Report and Recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, the district court dismissed Martinez-Rodriguez's Fifth and Four teenth Amendment claims. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting dismissal of Martinez-Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted Defendant's motion and dismissed the case, holding that Defendants' actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law Martinez-Rodriguez timely appeals the district court's dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim.

II. Discussion

As a threshold matter we clarify the scope of the arguments raised by the parties in this appeal. Throughout the different stages of this litigation and in their briefs, the parties have rested on two basic assumptions. First, they assume that Defendants are protected by qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity. Second, they assume that the constitutional claim at issue should be treated as a Fourth Amendment violation akin to that discussed in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). We adopt the parties' assumptions for purposes of this appeal but do not decide whether they are warranted.

A. Summary Judgment

Our review of the district court's entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is de novo. Bergeron v. Cabral, 560 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2009).

Summary judgment should be granted if the record "show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). A genuine issue exists where the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Taylor v. Am. Chemistry Council, 576 F.3d 16, 24 (1st Cir.2009).

Similarly, "[a] fact is material if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." May mi v. P.R. Ports Auth., 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2008). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In order to overcome a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must put forth specific facts to support the conclusion that a triable issue subsists. Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir.2006). With respect to each issue on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must "present definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion." Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir.2008)(quoting Mesnick v. Gen, Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir.1.991)). However, "summary judgment cannot be defeated by relying on improbable inferences, conclusory allegations, or rank speculation." Ingram v. Brink's, Inc., 414 F.3d 222, 229 (1st Cir.2005).

B. Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity seeks to accommodate the public interest in deterring unlawful conduct with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 cases
  • Lu v. Hulme
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • September 22, 2015
    ...in light of the relevant substantive law, "it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." Martinez-Rodriguez v. Guevara , 597 F.3d 414, 419 (1st Cir.2010) (quoting Maymi v. P.R. Ports Auth. , 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2008) ). "Only disputes over facts that might affect ......
  • Prall v. City of Bos.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • November 18, 2013
    ...568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009)); see alsoLopera v. Town of Coventry, 640 F.3d 388, 396 (1st Cir.2011); Martinez–Rodriguez v. Guevara, 597 F.3d 414, 419 & n. 2 (1st Cir.2010); Mosher v. Nelson, 589 F.3d 488, 492 (1st Cir.2009). In this case, Prall alleges that he was stopped and arrested w......
  • Piccone v. Bartels
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 25, 2014
    ...determining the outcome of the litigation.” Maymi v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2008) ; Martinez–Rodriguez v. Guevara, 597 F.3d 414, 419 (1st Cir.2010). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law properly preclude the e......
  • Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 22, 2014
    ...determining the outcome of the litigation.” Maymi v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2008) ; Martinez–Rodriguez v. Guevara, 597 F.3d 414, 419 (1st Cir.2010). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law properly preclude the e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT