December 15, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1651
ALFREDO HUALDE REDIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
ANABEL TORRES, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Hualde Redin and Maria Susana Costa De Hualde-Redin on
brief pro se.
Carlos Lugo Fiol, Acting Solicitor General, and Vannessa Ramirez,
Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for government appellees.
Luis A. Gonzalez on brief for appellees William Balbi, Anabela
Torres, Jose Sarro, Awilda Torre and Cecelia Herrans Lopez.
Per Curiam. We affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court in its March 24, 1993,
April 16, 1993, and May 18, 1993 opinions and orders. We add
the following.
1. With respect to plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment
claim, regardless what plaintiffs' rights in the vestibule
may be under Puerto Rico law, People v. Perez, 15 P.R. Sup.
Ct. Off'l Translations 1095, 1099 (1984), the officers' entry
into the common vestibule did not violate the federal
constitution. United States v. Concepcion, 942 F.2d 1170,
1171 (7th Cir. 1991) (officers' entry into locked common area
shared by five tenants did not violate the Fourth Amendment
because a tenant has no reasonable expectancy of privacy in
the common areas of an apartment building); United States v.
Penco, 612 F.2d 19, 24-25 (2d Cir. 1979) ("The Fourth
Amendment protection accorded to an apartment dweller's home
does not extend to the lobby of his apartment building . . .
or the area just inside a hall door that was meant to lock
but did not . . . or the hallway just outside his apartment
door . . .."); United States v. Cruz Pagan, 537 F.2d 554,
557-58 (1st Cir. 1976) (noting that whether or not agents'
entry into condominium garage was a technical trespass "is
not the relevant inquiry" and concluding that condominium
owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in garage
area).
-2-
2. With respect to plaintiffs' claims that the
police failed adequately to investigate plaintiffs' various
complaints and take ameliorative action, plaintiffs failed to
state a federal claim. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of
Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195-97 (1989) ("[N]othing in
the language of the Due Process Clause . . . requires the
State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its
citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is
phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a
guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and
security.").
3. All the briefs and reply briefs plaintiffs
filed have been considered. Plaintiffs' motions to strike
appellees' briefs, for oral argument, for further briefing
time, and to sanction appellees are all denied.
Affirmed.
-3-