USCA1 Opinion
December 23, 1992
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-1256
HERIBERTO AYALA-MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
HUMBERTO ANGLERO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Brody,* District Judge.
______________
_____________________
Federico Lora-L pez for appellant.
___________________
Anabelle Rodr guez, Solicitor General, with whom Reina Col n
__________________ ___________
de Rodr guez, Deputy Solicitor General and Carlos Lugo-Fiol,
____________ _________________
Assistant Solicitor General, were on brief for appellee
Wadalberto Matos-Burgos.
____________________
____________________
____________________
* Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Appellant Heriberto Ayala
_____________
Mart nez ("Ayala") appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his
lawsuit. In his complaint, Ayala alleged that Police Officer
Wadalberto Matos Burgos ("Matos") violated his constitutional
rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments and sought damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (" 1983").
We affirm the summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim
and remand the rest of the case for further proceedings in the
district court.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
__________
On June 30, 1989, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Matos
stopped Ayala for driving through a red light, and gave him a
sobriety test. Matos contends that this test revealed that Ayala
had been drinking alcohol.
After this test, Matos took Ayala to the police
station, where Ayala alleges that, in the presence of Matos,
Sergeant Angler and several other police officers battered him.
Ayala has since won judgment against Sergeant Angler for denying
Ayala's civil rights in violation of 1983 and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It is
unclear from the record whether Ayala accused Matos of
participating in the beating. Matos contends that after the
altercation, Ayala refused to submit to a chemical alcohol test.
Matos filed criminal charges against Ayala for
obstruction of justice, aggravated assault, driving under the
influence of alcohol, and failing to submit to a chemical alcohol
test. The magistrate found that Matos had probable cause to
arrest Ayala for failure to submit to a chemical alcohol test and
driving while under the influence of alcohol, but no probable
cause with respect to obstruction of justice and aggravated
assault. At trial, Ayala was found innocent on the failure to
submit and driving under the influence charges.
Ayala initially sued both Matos and Sergeant Angler
for malicious prosecution. He then moved to amend his complaint.
His amended complaint added to his initial complaint charges of
conspiracy, false arrest and excessive use of force.
We cannot determine from the district court's opinion
whether it granted or denied Ayala's amended complaint. In its
opinion, the court granted summary judgment to Matos and at the
same time said that it granted Ayala's motion to amend his
complaint, erroneously commenting that the amendment's only
addition to the complaint consisted of adding the name of
Sergeant Angler 's wife. Additionally, in granting summary
judgment, it discussed only the malicious prosecution count
without mentioning the three additional counts that the amended
complaint added.
We affirm the district court's summary judgment with
respect to the malicious prosecution claim, and remand the rest
of the case to the district court for a clarification of whether
it granted the amended complaint, and for a ruling on the three
additional claims set forth in Ayala's amended complaint in the
event that it did.
-3-
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
________________
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if there
is no genuine issue of material fact, and that party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d
___________ _____
112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Our
review of summary judgments is plenary, and we look at all of the
facts on the record and draw all inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
__
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
_____________________
Ayala contends that Matos maliciously prosecuted him in
violation of 1983. Specifically, he claims that Matos
"knowing[ly] and maliciously falsified evidence in order to
initiate proceedings against [him] . . . ." Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint at 5.
A federal constitutional claim under 1983 based on
malicious prosecution requires conduct so egregious and
conscience shocking that it violates the plaintiff's due process
rights. Torres v. Superintendent of Police of Puerto Rico, 893
______ ________________________________________
F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1990).
To constitute a violation of due process, a malicious
prosecution must either result in a deprivation of life, liberty,
or property, or violate another constitutional right. Id. See
__ ___
also Albright v. Oliver, 975 F.2d 343, 347 (7th Cir. 1992). For
____ ________ ______
example, if a defendant prosecuted a plaintiff due to race, or in
order to prevent free speech, then the malicious prosecution
wouldgenerate a constitutional claim. See Torres,893 F.2d at 409.
___ ______
-4-
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ayala,
the motions and evidence reflect that: several police officers
beat Ayala without physical provocation; Matos was present during
the beating and might have participated; Matos then fabricated
several charges against Ayala in order to justify the injuries
that Ayala received.
While these facts, if true, are clearly morally
repugnant and might well support a claim for malicious
prosecution under Puerto Rican tort law, they fail to meet the
standards of a malicious prosecution claim under 1983. T h e
evidence fails to show that Matos prosecuted Ayala for racial or
political motivation, or otherwise deprived him of equal
protection. In addition, Ayala's detention was part of a lawful
arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol, and the
magistrate quickly dismissed the questionable charges that Matos
brought. Thus, the malicious prosecution did not cause the
deprivation of Ayala's life, liberty, or property.
Because Ayala suffered no due process violation, Matos
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the malicious
prosecution claim.
We remand the rest of the case for a clarification of
whether the district court granted Ayala's amended complaint, and
for a ruling on the amended complaint's three additional claims
in the event that it did.
Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
__________________________________
-5-