Pena-Borrero v. Estremeda
| Citation | 365 F.3d 7 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-1084.,03-1084. |
| Parties | Cecilio PEÑA-BORRERO; Orlando Peña-Ayala; Astry Peña-Ayala, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Juan ESTREMEDA; Hector Millan Santiago, Defendants, Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Mauricio Hernández-Arroyo for appellants.
Eduardo A. Vera-Ramírez with whom Eileen Landrón Guardiola and Landrón & Vera, LLP were on brief for appellees.
Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.
On November 10, 2000, appellant Cecilio Peña-Borrero was arrested by officers of the Puerto Rico Police Department on a valid warrant. He was released the same day after posting a $300 bond. Nearly six weeks later, on December 21, he was awakened at his home in the middle of the night and arrested again; the warrant carried by the officers was facially identical to the earlier document but was no longer active because of its prior execution. Despite his protests of a mistake, and his display of documents showing the earlier arrest and release, the officers took him into custody and transported him to police headquarters. He was released later that morning. Appellant subsequently filed this action, claiming civil rights violations under federal and Commonwealth law. The district court concluded that the complaint failed to state a viable claim for relief and thus granted defendants' motion to dismiss. We now vacate the dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings.
We summarize the facts and allegations set forth in the complaint. When police officers arrived at appellant's home at approximately 3:30 a.m. on December 21, 2000, he and his two young children, Orlando and Astry Peña-Ayala,1 were asleep. Appellant heard a loud noise in the yard and looked out to see eight to ten police officers gathered there. Informed that the officers had an arrest warrant, appellant asked if it involved "the Sabana Grande or Mayaguez case" and reported that the warrant already had been executed. Two officers, one of whom was identified as Captain Santiago, repeated the instruction for appellant to come outside. As he opened the door to comply,2 officers entered the house, pushed appellant's arms behind his back, and handcuffed him in front of the two children. In the course of the arrest, he re-injured his ribs and back, which previously had been injured in a car accident.
Once outside, appellant told the officers that he had in the trunk of his car a copy of the executed arrest warrant and a receipt for the bond that he had posted to be released on bail. Officers retrieved his car keys from inside the house, opened the trunk, and found the copy of the executed warrant. It was identical to the one possessed by defendants — showing its issuance in Sabana Grande on October 19 — but bore a stamp showing that it had been executed on November 10. The bond receipt also was dated November 10.
Despite the obvious overlap, the officers persisted in taking appellant to police headquarters. His children were taken away in another vehicle. Appellant was placed in a cell with three other individuals. He met with his attorney at about 7 a.m. and was taken to court at about 9 a.m., "chained together with other arrestees." After some time, a judge reviewed the court papers, ordered him released, and apologized for the mistake.
Appellant brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and various provisions of Commonwealth law, contending that the officers,3 inter alia, violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal searches and seizures by subjecting him to false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force and an illegal search of his home. He further asserted that the officers conspired to deprive him of these rights. He claimed that the officers acted at least recklessly by failing to check police records before executing a two-month-old warrant and by ignoring the documentary evidence showing that the warrant previously had been executed.
On defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court concluded that, "[a]t best ... plaintiff's allegations state negligence claims, which, though actionable under Puerto Rico law, do not rise to the level of reckless disregard or callous indifference required for a constitutional claim." The court thus dismissed the federal claims explicitly, implicitly dismissing as well the pendent commonwealth claims.
On appeal, appellant contends that the district court improperly applied a heightened pleading standard to assess his claims and erred in finding his allegations inadequate to support a constitutional violation.4
We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, keeping in mind that a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim "`only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.'" Torres-Viera v. Laboy-Alvarado, 311 F.3d 105, 108 (1st Cir.2002) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002)); see also Judge v. City of Lowell, 160 F.3d 67, 72 (1st Cir.1998). At oral argument, appellants' counsel acknowledged that the conspiracy claim was thinly developed, and we agree with the district court that the allegations in the complaint directed to conspiracy are wholly conclusory and inadequate, under any pleading standard, to support relief. No more is necessary on that issue.
The remaining § 1983 claims "need only comply with the liberal `notice pleading' standards of the Federal Rules." Wilson v. Town of Mendon, 294 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2002) (citing Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993)); see also Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 513, 122 S.Ct. 992 ().5 With respect to those claims, we accept as true all well-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor.
Following these precepts, we accept as true that appellant was abruptly awakened in the middle of the night, forcefully arrested, and incarcerated for some six hours, despite unequivocal documentary evidence that the warrant justifying his arrest had been rendered invalid by prior execution. Moreover, officers had failed to check with the precinct in which the warrant originated to verify that it remained active.6
Based on these facts, we understand appellant to allege violations of the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, stemming from both the fact of his arrest and its forceful nature. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion) (); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) ().
We begin our analysis with the claim of excessive force, which is argued by appellant in highly abbreviated, conclusory form. His complaint alleges that officers threatened to break down the door and gates to gain entry to his home, used foul language, and
pushed both of [his] arms up behind his back up to almost his neck, whereby plaintiff told them that they were hurting him. Plaintiff was injured while being handcuffed in front of his two children.... Plaintiff reinjured his ribs near his chest which had been fractured due to a prior car accident in 1997 and his back was also injured where he has three (3) herniated discs.
In essence, appellant asserts a constitutional violation based on harsh language and handcuffing that was accomplished by pushing his arms behind his back, causing injury exacerbated by prior non-obvious injuries. Making only cursory reference to this claim in his brief, he suggests that, since no force was necessary to effectuate his arrest, any force was therefore unreasonable and excessive. In our view, however, the allegations demonstrate no more than the "degree of physical coercion," Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, typically attendant to an arrest. Given the unknown circumstances facing the officers as they entered appellant's home, see id. (), appellant's allegations of forceful handcuffing are insufficient to state a constitutional claim of excessive force. See id. (); cf. Alexis v. McDonald's Restaurants of Mass., 67 F.3d 341, 352-53 (1st Cir.1995) ().7
The remaining claim, however, is not so easily dismissed.8 The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals "the right `to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures' of the person." Graham, 490 U.S. at 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Despite facially authentic documentary evidence that the warrant was no longer effective, and with knowledge that they had failed to follow precautionary procedures to assure its vitality, the officers persisted with appellant's arrest and detention. If any doubts remained after appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cabot v. Lewis
...plaintiff would need to show that "defendants acted unreasonably in arresting [him] and taking him into custody." Pena–Borrero v. Estremeda , 365 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 2004). To do that, he would have to show that he did not engage in any harmful or offensive contact with Officer Lewis. In o......
-
Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v. Cape Wind Assocs.
...court properly dismissed Ten Taxpayer's complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Once again, our review is de novo. Peña-Borrero v. Estremeda, 365 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir.2004). The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not grant to the Commonwealt......
-
Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes
...and seizures. See Rodriguez v. Andreu Garcia, No. 03–2238, 2007 WL 1975005 at *4 (D.P.R. July 02, 2007) (citing Peña–Borrero v. Estremeda, 365 F.3d 7, 13 n. 8 (1st Cir.2004) ). The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,......
- In re New Motor Vehicles Can. Export Anti. Lit.