Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, PEREZ-RUIZ
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR; CYR |
| Citation | 25 F.3d 40 |
| Parties | Jesus M., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Jose, et al., Defendants, Appellees. ZoiloJESUS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Jose, et al., Defendants, Appellees. . Heard |
| Docket Number | Nos. 93-2264,LOPEZ-DE,PEREZ-RUIZ,93-2267,CRESPO-GUILLEN |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1994 |
Page 40
v.
Jose CRESPO-GUILLEN, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Zoilo LOPEZ-DE JESUS, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Jose CRESPO-GUILLEN, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
First Circuit.
Decided June 2, 1994.
Page 41
Enrique Bray, with whom Harvey B. Nachman, M. Georgina Carrion-Christiansen, and Nachman, Santiago, Bray, Guillemard & Carrion were on brief, for appellants.
Jacqueline D. Novas, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., with whom Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez, Sol. Gen., was on brief, for appellees.
Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR, Circuit Judge.
CYR, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Perez and Lopez were arrested and detained in connection with separate incidents on July 31, 1990, in Santurce, Puerto Rico, and charged with selling cocaine. Both were released on bail after being detained for less than twenty-four hours. Perez was acquitted in August 1991 and the Lopez charges were dismissed "for lack of evidence" in March 1992.
On June 24, 1992, plaintiffs-appellants brought virtually identical civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, with pendent commonwealth law claims, essentially alleging that the cocaine charges were trumped up. Defendants-appellees are various law enforcement officers and officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico allegedly involved in arresting and prosecuting appellants. The complaint asserts claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Appellants further claim that the alleged civil rights infractions were elements of a larger conspiracy against appellants and other businessmen. 1
The Lopez and Perez actions were assigned to different district judges. Defendants-appellees filed essentially identical motions to dismiss on the ground that the section 1983 claims were time-barred under the applicable one-year limitation borrowed from commonwealth law. See Lafont-Rivera v. Soler-Zapata, 984 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993). After the district court denied the motion to dismiss the Lopez action, the two cases were consolidated under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42, and docketed to Judge Gierbolini who eventually dismissed the consolidated action on the grounds that the false imprisonment and false arrest claims were time-barred and the complaint failed to state an actionable section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, 847
Page 42
F.Supp. 1, see Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir.1990) (only "egregious" misconduct implicates Sec. 1983 remedy; "malicious prosecution standing alone does not implicate federally protected rights").Appellants first challenge the dismissal order on the ground that the earlier district court ruling denying the motion to dismiss in the Lopez action became the "law of the case" in the consolidated action. Appellants misapprehend the "law of the case" doctrine. Interlocutory orders, including denials of motions to dismiss, remain open to trial court reconsideration, and do not constitute the law of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Lehane, Civ.A. 83-03676-WGY.
...could grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment after the previous judge had denied the motion); Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir.1994) ("Interlocutory orders, including denials of motions to dismiss, remain open to trial court reconsideration, and do not consti......
-
Hoffman v. Mercado, Civil No. 02-2561(DRD).
...under the [state] law defeats the possibility of a procedural due process claim" in the instant case. See Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 43 (1st Cir.1994) (holding that the adequate state remedy for malicious prosecution is under 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5141 is fatal to a claimant's ......
-
Burge v. Ferguson, Case No. 8:07-cv-2217-T-23MSS.
...open question in this circuit." U.S. Steel, LLC v. Tieco, Inc., 261 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir.2001). But see Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 43 (1st Cir.1994); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment)......
-
Cardi Corporation v. Department of Administration, C.A. No. 21-233 WES
...orders ... remain open to trial court reconsideration, and do not constitute law of the case." Id. (quoting Pérez–Ruiz v. Crespo–Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1994) ).As discussed, the superior court rejected Barletta/Aetna's argument that the State should have engaged in competitive ne......
-
Bryan v. United States, Civil Action No. 2010-0066
...(quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1125, 1185 (E.D. Pa. 1980); see also Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1994) ("Interlocutory orders, including denials of motions to dismiss, remain open to trial court reconsideration, and do not co......
-
Roma Const. Co. v. aRusso, No. 95-2107
...rubric that all reasonable inferences from properly pleaded facts are to be drawn in the plaintiffs' favor. Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir.1994); Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Drawing all reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs, the tale......
-
Pimentel v. City of Methuen, Civil Action No. 17–11921–FDS
...‘post-deprivation remedy’ is available under state law," plaintiff's procedural-due-process claim must fail. Perez–Ruiz v. Crespo–Guillen , 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1994) ; see also Herwins v. City of Revere , 163 F.3d 15, 19–20 (1st Cir. 1998) (stating that administrative error did not con......
-
Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes, CIV. No. 13–1360 (PG).
...cause of action.” Id. ( quoting Roche v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 256 (1st Cir.1996); Perez–Ruiz v. Crespo–Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42–43 (1st Cir.1994)). See also [50 F.Supp.3d 116] Montalvo Febus v. Sanchez, No. 11–1428(GAG), 2013 WL 6628299, at *5 (D.P.R. December 16, ......