Camacho-Morales v. Caldero

• Decision Date: 18 December 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No. 12–01533 BJM.
• Citation: 68 F.Supp.3d 261
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Parties: Alwin CAMACHO–MORALES, Plaintiff, v. José CALDERO, et al., Defendants.

68 F.Supp.3d 261

Alwin CAMACHO–MORALES, Plaintiff

v.José CALDERO, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 12–01533 BJM.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed Dec. 18, 2014.

Cristina M. Morales–Quinones, Jose Enrico Valenzuela–Alvarado, Valenzuela–Alvarado, LLC, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Maraliz Vazquez–Marrero, Departamento de Justicia, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

BRUCE J. McGIVERIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

In an amended complaint, plaintiff Alvin Camacho–Morales (“Camacho”) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Puerto Rico Police Department (“PRPD”) Superintendent José Caldero, in his official capacity;¹ former Superintendents² Emilio Díaz Colón (“Díaz”) and José Figueroa Sancha (“Figueroa”), in their personal and official capacities; Associate Superintendent José Luis Rivera Díaz (“Rivera Díaz”), in his personal and official capacity; Officers Leovigildo Vásquez (“Vásquez”), Reinaldo Bermúdez Ortiz (“Bermúdez”), José Rivera Alicea (“Rivera Alicea”), and Digno Cartagena,³ in their personal and official capacities; Human Resources Department employee Yadira Rivera Pabón (“Rivera Pabón”), in her personal and official capacity; and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”), alleging violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as under the laws and Constitution of Puerto Rico. Docket No. 5 (“Amend. Compl.”).

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Docket Nos. 28, 32. The court denied the motion. Docket No. 40. Camacho then moved for partial summary judgment, Docket No. 54 (“Pl.'s Mot.”), and defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, Docket No. 56 (“Defs.' Mot.”). Both sides opposed the other's summary judgment motion. Docket Nos. 68 (“Pl.'s Opp.”), 70 (“Defs.' Opp.”). Camacho also filed a reply. Docket No. 84. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. Docket Nos. 77, 80.

For the reasons set forth below, Camacho's motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to the federal claims.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material only if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), and “[a] ‘genuine’ issue is one that could be resolved in favor of either party.” Calero–Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir.2004). The court does not weigh the facts, but instead ascertains whether the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Leary v. Dalton, 58 F.3d 748, 751 (1st Cir.1995).

“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [evidence] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 600 n. 22, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). If this threshold is met, the opponent “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” to avoid summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The nonmoving party may not prevail with mere “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation” for any element of the claim. Medina–Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.1990). Still, the court draws inferences and evaluates facts “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” Leary, 58 F.3d at 751, and the court must not “superimpose [its] own ideas of probability and likelihood (no matter how reasonable those ideas may be) upon the facts of the record.” Greenburg v. P.R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932, 936 (1st Cir.1987).

BACKGROUND

This summary of the facts is guided by the parties' Local Rule 56 statements of uncontested facts.⁴ See Docket Nos. 54–1 (“Pl.'s SUMF”), 57 (“Defs.' SUMF”), 68–1 (“Pl.'s OSMF”), 70–1 (“Defs.' OSMF”).

Camacho worked as a PRPD officer from 1996 until July 2011. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 1. He first developed a relationship with the FBI in 1999, when he was put in contact with the agency after reporting his observations of illegal conduct within the PRPD to a supervisor and to Puerto Rico's Special Investigation Bureau (Spanish acronym “NIE”). Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 1–2. From 1999 to 2006, Camacho covertly collected information about corruption inside the force and relayed it to the FBI. Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 3, 6–7. He testified that, during this period, he viewed himself as acting as a sort of undercover agent for the FBI, though technically, because he was still a PRPD officer, he was really acting as a “confidential source.” Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 4, 8–9; Pl.'s OSMF ¶¶ 8–9. He stopped regularly providing the FBI with information in 2006, but for the next two years, the FBI contacted him every six months to ask whether he had witnessed any corrupt activities. Defs.' SUMF ¶ 10.

In November 2009, Camacho was approached at a CompUSA store, where he worked part-time as a loss prevention manager, by an NIE agent, whom he had known since 1999, and an FBI agent. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 2; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 2, 13–14. At the time, Camacho was not actively participating in any FBI investigation. Defs.' SUMF ¶ 14; Pl.'s OSMF ¶ 14. The agents asked him to participate in an ongoing FBI investigation into police corruption, later known as Operation Guard Shack, by posing as a corrupt officer himself; he agreed. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 3–4; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 18. For about 10 months, until September 2010, he took part in illegal activities with other PRPD officers and reported his observations directly to the FBI agent who had asked him to serve as an informant. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 5; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 25, 27. The FBI did not instruct Camacho to take any particular actions or gather any particularinformation. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 5. Although Camacho did not know it at the time, at least four other PRPD officers were providing the FBI with information in the same manner. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 7; Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 19, 26; Pl.'s OSMF ¶ 26.

In October 2010, almost 100 Puerto Rico law enforcement officers were arrested, at least in part due to the evidence furnished by Camacho. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 9. For security reasons, Camacho took leave from the PRPD from August 2010 to April 2011. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 13; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 26. Soon after the arrests, while Camacho was still on leave, he learned that he had been transferred from his current unit, the Tactical Operations Division in Bayamón, to the Police Academy in Gurabo. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 15; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 29. Camacho testified that he does not know precisely who was responsible for his transfer to the Academy. Defs.' SUMF ¶ 30. Specifically, as far as he knows, his transfer was not ordered by Rivera Alicea or Rivera Díaz. Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 31–33. He never actually worked a day at his new post; while he was still on leave, he received notice of another transfer, this time to the Joint Operations Division (“JOD”), located at the PRPD's General Headquarters in San Juan, effective April 6, 2011. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 19; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 37, 39.

The JOD is responsible for coordinating and integrating the efforts of the PRPD and the federal government; it is divided into task forces that work with various federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. Defs.' SUMF ¶ 51. Starting in May 2011, Rivera Alicea served as the director of the JOD. Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 50, 52, 62. As with his first transfer to the Academy, Camacho testified that he lacks personal knowledge as to who assigned him to the JOD. He does not know whether any of Figueroa, Rivera Díaz, Vásquez, Bermúdez, or Rivera Alicea was directly responsible. Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 40–44. However, he points to the PRPD's internal guidelines, which provide that the Superintendent and Associate Superintendent have authority to transfer officers within divisions. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 21. In any case, it is uncontested that in February 2011, the FBI asked Figueroa, then Superintendent, to transfer Camacho to the JOD, along with other officers who had served as informants in Operation Guard Shack. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 18; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 35. Camacho did not actually want to be transferred to the JOD, because of threats against his life that had been received at General Headquarters. Pl.'s SUMF ¶¶ 19–20; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 59.

At his new post, Camacho had very little to do; Rivera Alicea testified that the office did not generate enough administrative work to fully occupy Camacho and the two other officers who had been transferred to the JOD at the time. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 24. Camacho was not assigned to any of the JOD's task forces. Id. Generally, officers are assigned to task forces at the request of the relevant federal agency, with the approval of the PRPD. Defs.' SUMF ¶ 52; Pl.'s OSMF ¶ 52. Rivera Alicea testified, however, that he never received a request, at least from the FBI, to place Camacho on a task force. Defs.' SUMF ¶ 52. While at General Headquarters, Camacho never complained about harassment by his coworkers, and Rivera Alicea never witnessed any harassment. Defs.' SUMF ¶¶ 62–63.

On May 13, 2011, Camacho met with Bermúdez, and two other PRPD officers who had played roles in Operation Guard Shack similar to Camacho's. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 28; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 72. The meeting was ordered by Superintendent Figueroa to address concerns that had been expressed by officers who had, like Camacho, covertly participated in Operation Guard Shack. Pl.'s SUMF ¶ 27; Defs.' SUMF ¶ 69. The previous day, in fact, the other two officers had...