ramirez-lluveras v. rivera-merced, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Ramirez-Lluveras v. Rivera-Merced, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/46

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 2339, 13- 1169

EVELYN RAM REZ- LLUVERAS; J ENI TZA CCERES, r epresent ed byEvel yn Ram r ez- Ll uver as; M. C. , r epr esent ed by Evel yn

Ram r ez- Ll uver as; M. A. C. , r epr esent ed byEvel yn Ram r ez- Ll uver as,

Pl ai nt i f f s, Appel l ees/ Cr oss- Appel l ant s,

v.

EDWI N RI VERA- MERCED; PEDRO TOLEDO- DVI LA;LI EUTENANT V CTOR CRUZ- SNCHEZ; SERGEANT RAFAEL FI GUEROA- SOL S;

SERGEANT J UAN COLN- BEZ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s/ Cr oss- Appel l ees,

J AVI ER PAGN- CRUZ; CARLOS SUSTACHE- SUSTACHE; ZULMA D AZ;MI GUEL VZQUEZ- SAN ANTONI O; J OHN DOES A- Z, Rep. Empl oyees,

Cont r act or s, or Agent s of t he P. R. Pol i ce Depar t ment ,

Def endants.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,

Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Susana I . Peagar cano- Br own, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al ,wi t h whomMar gar i t a L. Mer cado- Echegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant s/ cross- appel l ees.

J udi t h Ber kan, wi t h whomMar y J o Mndez and Ber kan/ Mndez wer eon br i ef , f or appel l ees/ cross- appel l ant s.


2/46

J ul y 14, 2014

-2-


3/46

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Thi s t r agi c case ar i ses out of t he

unwar r ant ed shoot i ng deat h of a ci vi l i an, Mi guel A. Ccer es- Cr uz,

i n Puer t o Ri co by an on- dut y pol i ce of f i cer , J avi er Pagn- Cr uz.

Pl ai nt i f f s, t he vi ct i m' s sur vi vi ng wi f e and chi l dr en, sued Pagn,

hi s t wo f el l ow of f i cer s on t he scene, and f i ve super vi sor s under 42

U. S. C. 1983 f or vi ol at i ng t he decedent ' s Four t h Amendment r i ght s

by causi ng hi s wr ongf ul deat h.

The super vi sor s i ni t i al l y moved t o di smi ss t he cl ai ms

agai nst t hem under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( c) ; t hat mot i on was gr ant ed

i n par t and deni ed i n par t . See Rami r ez- Ll uver as v. Pagan- Cr uz,

833 F. Supp. 2d 151, 165 ( D. P. R. 2011) . Lat er , af t er di scover y,

t he f i ve supervi sor s successf ul l y moved f or summary j udgment on t he

r emai ni ng cl ai ms agai nst t hem. See Rami r ez- Ll uver as v. Pagan- Cr uz,

833 F. Supp. 2d 165, 182 ( D. P. R. 2011) . Af t er war d, t he pl ai nt i f f s

pr evai l ed at t r i al agai nst t he def endant s Pagn and t he t wo ot her

on- scene of f i cer s, Car l os Sust ache- Sust ache and Zul ma D az. The

j ur y awar ded t he pl ai nt i f f s appr oxi mat el y $11. 5 mi l l i on.

The case now r eaches us on t wo appeal s: t he pl ai nt i f f s'

appeal f r omt he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment i n f avor

of t he super vi sory def endant s ( No. 13- 1169) and the super vi sory

def endant s' appeal f r om t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ear l i er deni al of

t hei r Rul e 12( c) mot i on ( No. 11- 2339) . We af f i r m t he gr ant of

summar y j udgment agai nst pl ai nt i f f s' super vi sor y l i abi l i t y cl ai ms

agai nst each of t he supervi sor s. We di smi ss t he Commonweal t h' s

-3-


4/46

appeal f r om t he ear l i er par t i al deni al of t he Rul e 12( c) mot i on as

t o t hese same def endants.

I .

We br i ef l y descr i be t he pr ocedur al hi st or y bef or e t ur ni ng

t o t he f acts of t he case. On Apr i l 28, 2008, t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed

sui t under 1983 agai nst Pagn and hi s t wo on- scene col l eagues,

Of f i cer s Car l os Sust ache- Sust ache and Zul ma D az ( col l ect i vel y, t he

l i ne of f i cer s) , and agai nst Col . Edwi n Ri ver a- Mer ced, t he Puer t o

Ri co Pol i ce Depar t ment ( PRPD) Ar ea Commander f or Humacao, as t hei r

super vi sor . On Mar ch 30, 2009, t he pl ai nt i f f s amended t hei r

compl ai nt t o add t he f our ot her super vi sor y of f i cer s as def endant s.

However , none of t he cl ai ms agai nst any of t he super vi sor y

def endant s arose f r om any di r ect super vi si on of Pagn on t he ni ght

of t he shoot i ng or f r omany per sonal i nvol vement of t he super vi sor s

wi t h t he shoot i ng. The supervi sor y def endant s answered t he amended

compl ai nt and set f or t h a l i st of f or t y- one af f i r mat i ve def enses,

i ncl udi ng qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

On Apr i l 20, 2010, t he super vi sory def endant s f i l ed a

"Mot i on t o Di smi ss Amended Compl ai nt and/ or f or J udgment on t he

Pl eadi ngs" under Rul es 12( b) ( 6) and 12( c) of t he Feder al Rul es of

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e. 1

1 For r easons not r eveal ed i n t he r ecor d, nei t her t he cour tnor pl ai nt i f f s r eact ed t o t he mot i on unt i l t he super vi sor ydef endant s asked t he cour t t o gr ant t he mot i on as unopposed onDecember 8, 2010. On December 20, 2010, pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed anopposi t i on t o t he mot i on.

-4-


5/46

The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on i n par t and deni ed

i t i n par t on Sept ember 30, 2011. Speci f i cal l y, t he cour t

di smi ssed al l of t he pl ai nt i f f s' 1983 cl ai ms, i ncl udi ng t he

Four t h Amendment cl ai ms, agai nst t he supervi sor y def endant s br ought

i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' own i ndi vi dual capaci t i es, as opposed t o t hei r

capaci t i es as repr esent at i ves of t he vi ct i m. I t di d so based on

i t s f i ndi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s l acked st andi ng t o asser t

i ndi vi dual cl ai ms because t her e was no al l egat i on t hat t he

super vi sors' conduct was ai med at t he f ami l y r el at i onshi p. The

cour t di smi ssed al l cl ai ms under t he Four t eent h Amendment . I t al so

gr ant ed t he mot i on as t o ot her cl ai ms agai nst t he super vi sory

def endant s i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' r epr esent at i ve capaci t i es. I t

al l owed t he 1983 Four t h Amendment cl ai ms agai nst t he supervi sor y

def endant s t o pr oceed, decl i ni ng t o r esol ve t hei r qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y def ense on t he pl eadi ngs. 2 The pl ai nt i f f s di d not appeal

t he di smi ssal of t hese cl ai ms i n t he pl ai nt i f f s' i ndi vi dual

capaci t i es agai nst t he super vi sor s. The super vi sory def endant s

appeal ed f r om t he deni al of t hei r mot i on t o di smi ss as t o t he

Four t h Amendment 1983 cl ai ms agai nst t hem. 3

2 The di st r i ct cour t al so deni ed t he mot i on t o di smi ss as t opl ai nt i f f s' suppl ement al negl i gence cl ai ms under Ar t i cl e 1802 of

t he Puer t o Ri co Ci vi l Code. Nei t her par t y pr esent s an argumentabout t he Ar t i cl e 1802 cl ai m, so t hose argument s are wai ved. SeeOr t i z v. Gast on Cnt y. Dyei ng Mach. Co. , 277 F. 3d 594, 598 ( 1st Ci r .2002) .

3 Because t he super vi sor y def endant s had al r eady pr evai l ed onsummary j udgment by t he t i me t hei r appeal f r om t he Rul e 12( c)

-5-


6/46

On December 22, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

super vi sor y def endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment . Thi s l ef t t he

cl ai ms agai nst t he l i ne of f i cer s, Pagn, Sust ache, and D az.

The cl ai ms agai nst t he l i ne of f i cer s went t o t r i al bef or e

a j ur y i n l at e Oct ober 2012. On November 9, 2012, t he j ur y r eached

a ver di ct i n f avor of t he pl ai nt i f f s agai nst al l t hr ee l i ne

of f i cer s. Af t er ent r y of f i nal j udgment , t he pl ai nt i f f s appeal ed

t he gr ant of summary j udgment i n f avor of t he super vi sor y

def endant s. 4 The t wo appeal s wer e consol i dated.

I I .

The f ol l owi ng f act s ar e undi sput ed, except where not ed.

To t he ext ent t he f act s ar e di sput ed, we t ake t hem i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f s f or pur poses of t he super vi sor y

def endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment . See Pi neda v. Toomey, 533

F. 3d 50, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

A. The August 11, 2007 Shoot i ng

Mi guel A. Ccer es- Cr uz ( "Ccer es" ) , t he vi ct i m, was a

member of t he Punta Sant i ago Scoot er Cl ub. On t he eveni ng of

August 11, 2007, ar ound 6: 10 p. m. , r oughl y el even member s of t he

deci si on was pr ocessed, we gr ant ed pl ai nt i f f s' mot i on t o st ay thatappeal pendi ng t he ent r y of f i nal j udgment i n t he di st r i ct cour t .

4 The summar y j udgment deci si on was not i mmedi at el y appeal abl ebecause t he case agai nst t he l i ne of f i cer s r emai ned act i ve.Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st asked t he di st r i ct cour t t o cer t i f y t he summar yj udgment deci si on t o t hi s cour t f or appeal ; t hat r equest wasdeni ed. Pl ai nt i f f s t hen asked t he cour t t o r econsi der i t s summar yj udgment deci si on; t hat mot i on was al so deni ed.

-6-


7/46

Cl ub br ought t hei r scoot er s t o a house f or a qui nceaer o5 at whi ch

t hey wer e t o ser ve as an escor t f or t he f i f t een- year - ol d bi r t hday

gi r l . Wi t h t he scoot er s par ked on t he st r eet , t wo- way t r af f i c was

obst r uct ed, so Ccer es hel ped di r ect car s ar ound t he par ked

scooters.

One of t he cars caught i n t he t r af f i c was a PRPD For d

Expl or er i n whi ch of f i cer s Pagn, Sust ache, and D az wer e r i di ng.

The of f i cer s wer e not assi gned t o a pat r ol i n t hi s ar ea, Punt a

Sant i ago, but i nst ead wer e passi ng t hr ough on t hei r way t o a

di f f er ent area, Naguabo, t o whi ch t hey wer e assi gned t o combat dr ug

t r af f i cki ng. They di d not have any di r ect i ons t o engage i n any

act i ons i n Punt a Sant i ago. I n f act , t he of f i cer s passed t hr ough

Punt a Sant i ago onl y because t hey chose t o t ake a di f f er ent r out e t o

Naguabo t han t hey had been i nst r uct ed t o t ake af t er pi cki ng up

Of f i cer D az, who had been l at e f or her shi f t .

When Pagn r eached Ccer es' s posi t i on, he t ol d Ccer es

t hat onl y t he pol i ce have t he aut hor i t y t o di r ect t r af f i c. He al so

order ed t he cl ub member s t o move thei r scoot er s of f t he r oad wi t hi n

f i ve mi nut es. What happened next i s not ent i r el y cl ear , al t hough

bot h par t i es agr ee wi t h t he gener al out l i nes. Ther e i s a di sput e

over whether t he cl ub members act ual l y began movi ng t hei r scoot ers.

The par t i es agree t hat Pagn and Ccer es began exchangi ng i nsul t s

5 A qui nceaer o i s a t r adi t i onal comi ngof - age bi r t hday par t yt hr own f or gi r l s as t hey t ur n f i f t een, wi t h r ough si mi l ar i t i es t oa "sweet si xteen" par t y.

-7-


8/46

and t hat at some poi nt i n t he exchange, D az t ol d Ccer es t hat he

was under ar r est . A vi deo of t he i nci dent shows t he t hr ee of f i cer s

separ at i ng Ccer es f r om hi s f el l ow cl ub member s. A f i ght br oke

out . The par t i es di sput e who i ni t i at ed t he physi cal cont act , but

t hey agr ee t hat , at some poi nt , Ccer es r esi st ed, hi t t i ng bot h D az

and Pagn. Event ual l y, ei t her t he of f i cer s dr ove Ccer es to t he

gr ound or he st umbl ed t o t he ground af t er bei ng hi t . Pagn punched

Ccer es i n t he f ace whi l e Ccer es was on t he gr ound. Ccer es had

been dr i ven t o a seat ed posi t i on on t he gr ound wi t h hi s back

agai nst a f ence. As he sat , he was st r addl ed by Pagn and

sur r ounded by the ot her t wo of f i cer s.

Fr om t he gr ound, Ccer es r eached up and t ouched Pagn' s

gun hol st er ; t he par t i es di sput e whet her he was s i mpl y reachi ng f or

Pagn' s l eg whi l e he was t r yi ng t o st and or whet her he was

cont i nui ng t he f i ght . Pagn pl aced hi s hand on t op of Ccer es' s

and t he t wo st r uggl ed over t he gun. Event ual l y, t he gun, st i l l

hol st er ed on Pagn, went of f and shot Pagn i n hi s l eg. Pagn

pul l ed away f r om Ccer es, who sl umped f r om a si t t i ng posi t i on t o

l yi ng wi t h hi s st omach on t he gr ound. Whi l e Ccer es was st i l l on

t he gr ound, Pagn dr ew hi s gun and shot Ccer es mul t i pl e t i mes i n

t he back. Af t er a pause, Pagn shot Ccer es one f i nal t i me, t hi s

t i me i n t he head, admi ni st er i ng a coup de gr ce. Ccer es di ed f r om

t he shoot i ng. He was 43 years ol d at t he t i me. Pagn was 33 years

ol d, and a 13- year vet eran of t he PRPD.

-8-


9/46

The of f i cer s r et r eat ed t o t hei r car and l ef t t he scene.

D az t hen used t he pol i ce r adi o t o i nf or m a di spat cher t hat Pagn

was bl eedi ng pr of usel y. She di d not ment i on t he shoot i ng of

Ccer es.

Ther e ar e l at er event s whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s di scuss at

l engt h as evi dence of an al l eged cover - up of t he shoot i ng.

Speci f i cal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s expl ai n t hat some of t he super vi sor y

def endant s r epr esent ed t o the medi a that Pagn had cl ear l y been

act i ng t o def end hi msel f agai nst Ccer es' s unpr ovoked aggr essi on.

However , t he pl ai nt i f f s do not expl ai n how any al l eged cover - up

af t er t he shoot i ng woul d be r el evant t o t hei r cl ai ms, whi ch ar e

based on a wr ongf ul death theory, si nce any al l eged cover - up woul d

have occur r ed af t er Ccer es had al r eady di ed. We do not di scuss

t he cover - up t heor y. Pagan was di smi ssed f r omt he PRPD on J une 4,

2008.

B. Pagn' s Di sci pl i nar y Hi st or y

The pl ai nt i f f s' t heor i es of l i abi l i t y agai nst t he

super vi sory def endant s r el y heavi l y on t he pr oposi t i on t hat Pagn' s

di sci pl i nar y hi st or y pr ovi ded adequat e war ni ng t o hi s super vi sor s

t hat he was at subst ant i al r i sk of commi t t i ng an unj ust i f i ed

shoot i ng of an ar r est ee as an ar med of f i cer , and t hat t he

super vi sor s wer e del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t hi s r i sk. The

pl ai nt i f f s t hen asser t t heor i es t hat var i ous pol i ci es and

-9-


10/46

pr ocedur es i nt er f er ed wi t h t he def endant s' t aki ng appr opr i at e

act i ons on t hose r i sks.

Pagn had been the subj ect of seven di sci pl i nar y

compl ai nt s bef or e t he August 11, 2007 shoot i ng. The f i r st

compl ai nt , i n 1998, was f or t hef t of gover nment pr oper t y ( whi ch he

had l ef t i n t he t r unk of hi s per sonal vehi cl e) , f or whi ch he

r ecei ved a war ni ng.

The second compl ai nt , and of most si gni f i cance t o t hi s

case, was a set of 1999 domest i c vi ol ence al l egat i ons descr i bed i n

t he of f i ci al r ecor d as f ol l ows: "The compl ai nant al l eged t hat af t er

[ compl ai nant ] ent er ed i nt o a r omant i c r el at i onshi p wi t h [ Pagn] he

at t acked her because he saw her t al ki ng wi t h another of f i cer and he

t hr eat ened her wi t h hi s r egul at i on f i r ear m. " The PRPD' s i ni t i al

i nvest i gat i on of t hese al l egat i ons st ar t ed i mmedi at el y and r an

t hr ough 2004. I n 2004, t he PRPD Super i nt endent r el eased an i ni t i al

di sci pl i nary r ecommendat i on f or t er mi nat i on of Pagn' s empl oyment .

Af t er a hear i ng i n whi ch Pagn deni ed t he al l egat i ons, t he

Super i nt endent i n May 2006 i nst ead order ed di sci pl i ne of 60 days'

suspensi on f r om empl oyment wi t hout pay. Pagn ser ved t hat

di sci pl i ne between August and Oct ober of 2006.

The t hi r d compl ai nt was a 1999 i nsubor di nat i on char ge,

whi ch was pendi ng at t he t i me Pagn was di smi ssed f r om t he PRPD

af t er t he August 11, 2007 shoot i ng and was f i l ed f or f ut ur e

r ef er ence as a r esul t . A f our t h compl ai nt was f i l ed i n 2002 f or

-10-


11/46

Pagn' s f ai l ur e t o appear i n a l ocal cour t af t er bei ng subpoenaed.

Lat er i n 2002, t her e was a f i f t h compl ai nt about r epor t i ng a " l oss"

i n a st ol en and r ecover ed vehi cl e r epor t . Si xt h, i n 2003, Pagn

was char ged wi t h f ai l i ng t o t ake act i on on a compl ai nt f i l ed by a

ci t i zen; t he char ge was f i l ed i n t he r ecor d. Fi nal l y, i n 2004,

t her e was a compl ai nt f or assaul t i ng a mot or cycl i st , about whi ch

t her e ar e no ot her det ai l s i n t he r ecor d. The char ge was al so

f i l ed i n t he r ecor d.

We r etur n t o t he domest i c vi ol ence compl ai nt , whi ch was

consi der ed "subst ant i at ed" af t er t he i ni t i al i nvest i gat i on, and on

whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s' case l ar gel y r est s. The domest i c vi ol ence

compl ai nt was based on t hr ee i nci dent s begi nni ng i n August 1998

i nvol vi ng Pagn' s t hen- gi r l f r i end: ( 1) i n August 1998, af t er Pagn

saw hi s gi r l f r i end speaki ng wi t h anot her pol i ce of f i cer , t he

gi r l f r i end al l eged t hat Pagn sl apped her , poi nt ed hi s of f i ci al

f i r ear m at her , and t hr eat ened t o ki l l her i f he saw her wi t h

anot her man; ( 2) l at er , t he gi r l f r i end al so al l eged t hat af t er she

and Pagn had broken up and she sent Pagn a bi l l f or a beeper she

had bought hi m as a gi f t , he "bur st " i nt o her home and t ol d her ,

"Who t he hel l asked you t o send t he beeper and the bi l l wi t h

Of f i cer Sammy Tor r es, " whi ch upset her ; and ( 3) l at er , t he

gi r l f r i end added t he cl ai mt hat at some ear l i er t i me i n 1998, Pagn

had st or ed i n her home an ar r est ee' s f i r ear m f or t hr ee days bef or e

r emovi ng i t and t aki ng i t t o t he Fi r ear ms Di vi si on, and t hat he

-11-


12/46

"swor e t hat he was goi ng t o ki l l t he ar r est ee. " ( Pagn di d not

ki l l t he ar r est ee, nor di d he t ake any st eps t owar d doi ng so. )

The PRPD pr ompt l y i nvest i gat ed t he gi r l f r i end' s

compl ai nt . On t he same day t he compl ai nt was f i l ed, t he super vi sor

on dut y i nt er vi ewed t he compl ai nant , went t o t he Di st r i ct At t or ney,

who deci ded t her e was no basi s t o f i l e cr i mi nal char ges agai nst

Pagn, and not i f i ed t he PRPD J uncos Di st r i ct Commander of t he

admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt . Two days l ater , a memo was sent f r omt he

J uncos Di st r i ct Commander t o t he Humacao Ar ea Commander submi t t i ng

t he domest i c vi ol ence compl ai nt f or consi der at i on. I t descr i bed

t he compl ai nt as f ol l ows:

The cl ai mant al l eges t hat she had an i nt i mat econsensual r el at i onshi p wi t h [ Pagn] f orsever al mont hs. That , dur i ng t he mont h ofAugust and on Sept ember 29, 1998, she waspsychol ogi cal l y and ver bal l y abused t hr ought hr eat s made by t he same, whi ch woul d make herwor r y.

The memo r epeat ed t hat t he Di st r i ct At t or ney had decl i ned t o f i l e

char ges si nce he bel i eved no domest i c vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of

Puer t o Ri co l aw had been commi t t ed. The memo al so st at ed t hat

Pagn' s pol i ce- i ssued f i r ear m had been sei zed and he had been

r ef er r ed t o the Domest i c Vi ol ence Di vi si on i n compl i ance wi t h PRPD

gui del i nes.

As t o t he Domest i c Vi ol ence Di vi si on, on December 17,

1998, t he Di r ect or of t he Domest i c Vi ol ence Di vi si on asked t hat Dr .

Ai da Myrna Vl ez of t he Psychol ogy and Soci al Work Di vi si on gi ve

-12-


13/46

pr i or i t y t o a psychol ogi cal eval uat i on of Pagn, r ef er enci ng an

ear l i er r equest whi ch had been made on Oct ober 19, 1998. There i s

no evi dence t hat t he psychol ogi cal eval uat i on pr oduced any

i ndi cat i on t hat Pagn was t hought t o pose a r i sk t o ot her s.

As of August 2000, t he PRPD conduct ed a f or mal

admi ni st r at i ve i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he domest i c abuse char ges. Sgt .

J os Ber r os D az documented hi s i nvest i gat i on i n an August 23,

2000 memo t o t he Assi st ant Super i nt endent r esponsi bl e f or

admi ni st r at i ve i nvest i gat i ons. The memo char act er i zed t he

compl ai nant as bei ng t he "vi ct i mof ver bal and psychol ogi cal abuse

t hr ough t hr eats made by [ Pagn] . " Evel yn Vel zquez, a f r i end of

t he compl ai nant , was i nt er vi ewed and st ated Pagn had "ver bal l y

i nsul t ed" t he compl ai nant and had t hr eatened t he compl ai nant wi t h

death, but t hat t he compl ai nant had never t ol d her t hat Pagn ever

"physi cal l y assaul t ed her . " Vel zquez al so conf i r med t hat Char l i e,

t he ar r est ee whose gun had been kept t emporar i l y at t he

compl ai nant ' s house, had made t hr eat s agai nst Pagn. Vel zquez

al so sai d t hat whi l e wi t h Pagn and t he compl ai nant , Vel zquez had

once "pl ayf ul l y" t aken Pagn' s gun and poi nt ed i t hi m, "al so

pl ayf ul l y, " so t hat he "woul d l ear n" what hi s gi r l f r i end f el t when

he had t hreat ened her .

The r epor t st at ed t hat "Pagn was i nt er vi ewed and st at ed

t hat what was bei ng sai d was not t r ue. " The i nvest i gat i ve r epor t

-13-


14/46

concl uded t hat Pagn had commi t t ed f our ser i ous vi ol at i ons of PRPD

st andards of conduct . 6

Based upon t hi s r epor t , t hen- Super i nt endent Agust n

Car t agena D az wr ot e to Pagn on August 30, 2004, i nf ormi ng hi m of

t he r esul t s of t he i nvest i gat i on. Based on t he gi r l f r i end' s

al l egat i ons, t he l et t er expr essed an i nt ent t o expel Pagn f r omt he

PRPD. The l et t er not i f i ed Pagn of hi s r i ght t o a hear i ng on t he

i ssue.

Pagn request ed a hear i ng, whi ch was hel d on Oct ober 8,

2005. Af t er t he hear i ng, an Associ at e Pol i ce Super i nt endent ,

si gni ng on behal f of Pol i ce Super i nt endent Pedr o Tol edo- Dvi l a,

i nf ormed Pagn by a l et t er dat ed May 18, 2006 that t he pr oposed

expul si on woul d be conver t ed t o a 60- day suspensi on wi t hout pay.

I mpor t ant l y, t he May 18, 2006 l et t er st at ed: "Af t er eval uat i ng t he

r ecor d we have determi ned t hat t he sanct i on announced i n the

6 The vi ol at i ons wer e:

Ser i ous Of f ense #1: "Show a pat ent i nabi l i t y,i ncompet ence, car el essness, par t i al i t y or negl i gence i nt he per f or mance of hi s or her dut i es, f unct i ons andrespons i bi l i t i es . "Ser i ous Of f ense #3: "Leave pol i ce- i ssued f i r ear ms or anyot her f i r ear mcar r i ed or possessed under a per mi t at t her each of other per sons who ar e not aut hor i zed t o use t hemor al l ow ot her s t o use t hem, or f ai l i ng t o t ake t he

cor r espondi ng measur es i n rel at i on to t hem. "Ser i ous Of f ense #2: "Thr eat en wi t h, or use, a f i r ear magai nst any per son, except when def endi ng onesel f orot her s. [ "]Ser i ous Of f ense #27: "Act i ng i n a damagi ng, i mmoral ordi sorder l y manner t o t he det r i ment of t he Pol i ceDepar t ment . "

-14-


15/46

Resol ut i on of Charges must be modi f i ed. I n consequence I suspend

you f r om empl oyment and pay f or t he t er m of si xt y ( 60) days

ef f ect i ve on t he dat e of not i f i cat i on f or t hi s communi cat i on"

( emphasi s added) .

Pagn appar ent l y di d not appeal t hat deci si on. Pagn

ser ved t he suspensi on wi t hout pay bet ween August and Oct ober 2006.

Thi s was ei ght year s af t er t he under l yi ng domest i c abuse event s had

occur r ed. I t was one year bef ore t he shoot i ng. Ther e wer e no

ot her domest i c vi ol ence char ges asi de f r omt hose ar i si ng out of t he

event s i n 1998.

On November 4, 2004, Pagn was r eassi gned by t he Humacao

Ar ea Commander t o t he Speci al Response Team of t he Tact i cal

Oper at i ons Di vi si on ( TOD) , an "el i t e uni t " t r ai ned "t o deal wi t h

sensi t i ve si t uat i ons. "

C. The I dent i t y and Rol e of t he Super vi sor y Def endant s

The pl ai nt i f f s or i gi nal l y sued Col . Edwi n Ri ver a- Mer ced,

Humacao Ar ea Commander , as t he super vi sor of t he t hree l i ne

of f i cer s. The pl ai nt i f f s l at er added anot her f our super vi sor s at

var i ous l evel s i n t he Puer t o Ri co pol i ce depar t ment : Super i nt endent

Pedr o Tol edo- Dvi l a, Lt . V ct or Cr uz- Snchez, Sgt . Raf ael

Fi guer oa- Sol i s, and Sgt . J uan Col n- Bez.

On the dat e of t he shoot i ng i n August 2007, t he chai n of

command above Pagn was as f ol l ows. Sgt . Col n- Bez was servi ng as

Act i ng Di r ect or of t he TOD whi l e Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s, i t s r egul ar

-15-


16/46

Act i ng Di r ect or at t he t i me, was on vacat i on. I n t hat t empor ar y

posi t i on, Sgt . Col n- Bez had Pagn and anot her t hi r t y or so

of f i cer s i n t he TOD under hi s super vi si on. Sgt . Col n- Bez was i n

t ur n super vi sed by Lt . Cr uz- Snchez, t he of f i cer i n char ge of t he

Humacao ar ea. He r epor t ed t o Col . Ri ver a- Merced, t he Humacao Ar ea

Commander who over saw 400 to 500 of f i cer s, and Col . Ri ver a- Merced

r epor t ed t o Super i nt endent Tol edo- Dvi l a, who was t he hi ghest

r anki ng of f i cer i n t he ent i r e PRPD.

1. Super i nt endent Tol edo- Dvi l a

Tol edo- Dvi l a, now deceased, was t he Pol i ce

Super i nt endent of t he PRPD at t he t i me of t he shoot i ng, servi ng

f r om1993 t o 2000 and agai n f r om2005 t o 2008. Thi s i s t he hi ghest

posi t i on i n t he PRPD, whi ch had t housands of of f i cer s i n i t s

ser vi ce.

The pl ai nt i f f s al l eged t hat Super i nt endent Tol edo- Dvi l a

i nst i t ut ed pol i ci es maki ng i t di f f i cul t f or l ower - l evel super vi sor s

t o become aware of of f i cer s' of f enses by removi ng t he f act s about

t he of f enses f r om t hei r di sci pl i nar y memor anda. As t o per sonal

super vi sor y i nvol vement wi t h Pagn, Tol edo- Dvi l a was t he

super i nt endent who set Pagn' s sanct i on f or t he domest i c vi ol ence

compl ai nt at a 60- day suspensi on i n 2006 af t er t he hear i ng, a

l i ght er puni shment t han t he i ni t i al pr e- hear i ng r ecommendat i on of

expul si on. Super i nt endent Tol edo- Dvi l a i s not al l eged t o have had

-16-


17/46

any di r ect i nvol vement wi t h, or even di r ect super vi sor y

r esponsi bi l i t y over , Pagn' s act i ons on August 11, 2007.

2. Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced

Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced was t he Ar ea Commander of t he Humacao

area, whi ch i s wher e Pagn ser ved on t he day of t he shoot i ng. I n

t hat r ol e, Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced over saw about 400 t o 500 pol i ce

of f i cer s. The pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mt hat Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced knew about

Pagn' s 2006 suspensi on because he had per sonal l y "pr ocessed" i t ,

and t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or assi gni ng Pagn t o t he TOD. Col .

Ri ver a- Mer ced al so had t he aut hor i t y to r ef er of f i cer s under hi mt o

counsel i ng and t o r ecei ve f i t ness- f or - dut y r ecommendat i ons. The

pl ai nt i f f s' pr i mar y al l egat i on agai nst Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced i s t hat

upon Pagn' s r et ur n f r omt he 2006 suspensi on, he i mmedi atel y pl aced

Pagn back i nt o t he "el i t e" TOD wi t hout meani ngf ul l y consi der i ng

Pagn' s f i t ness f or t hat uni t . 7 The pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat

Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced f ai l ed to assi gn an adequate number of

super vi sors to t he TOD. Ther e i s no cl ai m t hat Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced

had di r ect l y super vi sed Pagn on t he day of t he shoot i ng; i ndeed,

t her e wer e sever al l ayer s of super vi sory per sonnel bet ween Col .

Ri ver a- Merced and Pagn, and Ri ver a- Merced was not on dut y on

August 11, 2007.

7 The di ssent f aul t s Lt . Cr uz- Snchez f or t he f act t hat he" t ook Pagn r i ght back i n to t he TOD, " even though t hat deci si onwas made by Col . Ri ver a- Mer ced. Lt . Cr uz- Snchez' s deci si on not t ocount er mand hi s super i or cannot be a basi s f or f i ndi ng hi m l i abl e.

-17-


18/46

3. Lt . Cr uz- Snchez

Lt . Cr uz- Snchez was t he Di r ect or of t he TOD i n Humacao

t hr ough Mar ch 2007, when he was el evat ed t o Commander of t he

Humacao pr eci nct . I n hi s rol e as TOD Di r ect or , Lt . Cr uz- Snchez

over saw about 30 of f i cer s. Lt . Cr uz- Snchez eval uat ed Pagn a f ew

mont hs af t er hi s r et ur n f r om t he suspensi on and "gave hi m gl owi ng

r at i ngs. " These hi gh r at i ngs may have been gi ven i n par t because

he gave al l of hi s subor di nat es hi gh r at i ngs and pr o f or ma

eval uat i ons.

The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege Lt . Cr uz- Snchez was di r ect l y

r esponsi bl e f or sel ect i ng l i ne of f i cer D az f or t he TOD and di d so

wi t hout r evi ewi ng her per sonnel f i l e. But t her e i s no cl ai m t hat

had he r evi ewed t he f i l e, Lt . Cr uz- Snchez woul d have had r eason t o

bel i eve Of f i cer D az woul d pose a subst ant i al r i sk t o ci vi l i ans;

moreover , D az was not t he shooter . Lt . Cr uz- Snchez al so had

di r ect knowl edge of Pagn' s suspensi on but di d not know i t s cause;

he l ater t est i f i ed t hat he t hought Pagn had been suspended f or

mi shandl i ng an i nvest i gat i on. Ther e i s no cl ai m t hat Lt .

Cr uz- Snchez was di r ect l y super vi si ng Pagn at t he t i me of t he

shoot i ng.

4. Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s

Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s was a super vi sor i n t he TOD and was

pr omot ed t o Act i ng Di r ect or i n Mar ch 2007 af t er Lt . Cr uz- Snchez' s

promot i on t o preci nct commander . Ther e were no ot her r anked

-18-


19/46

super vi sors i n t he TOD whi l e Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s was Act i ng

Di r ect or . Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s went on vacat i on i n J ul y and August

2007 and was out of t own on t he dat e of t he shoot i ng; dur i ng t hat

t i me, Sgt . Col n- Bez ser ved as Act i ng Di r ect or . The pl ai nt i f f s

al l ege t hat Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s di d not r evi ew t he di sci pl i nar y

f i l es of hi s subor di nat es - - ar guabl y agai nst depar t ment

r equi r ement s, al t hough hi s st at us as "Act i ng" Di r ect or makes t he

pr eci se r equi r ement uncl ear . He al so di d not r evi ew Pagn' s r ecor d

when Pagn ent er ed t he TOD; t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege i t i s r easonabl y

cl ear t hat he woul d have been expect ed t o do so t o make sur e t hat

t he new of f i cer was f i t f or t he assi gnment . Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s

was t he i ndi vi dual who not i f i ed Pagn about hi s proposed expul si on

i n 2004, but he was not f ami l i ar wi t h t he compl ai nt under l yi ng t he

pr oposal . He was al so r esponsi bl e al ong wi t h Sgt . Col n- Bez f or

choosi ng Sust ache and Pagn f or t he I mpact Uni t wi t hi n t he TOD.

Because he was on vacat i on on August 11, 2007, Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s

was not di r ect l y super vi si ng Pagn at t he t i me of t he shoot i ng.

5. Sgt . Col n- Bez

Fi nal l y, Sgt . Col n- Bez was Lt . Cr uz- Snchez' s assi st ant

whi l e t he l at t er was di r ect or of t he TOD. He r emai ned Lt .

Cr uz- Snchez' s assi st ant upon Lt . Cr uz- Snchez' s pr omot i on t o

pr eci nct commander i n ear l y 2007, but r etur ned t o t he TOD as Act i ng

Di r ect or whi l e Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s was on vacat i on i n J ul y and

August of 2007. He shar ed r esponsi bi l i t y wi t h Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s

-19-


20/46

f or pl aci ng Sust ache and Pagn on t he I mpact Uni t . Sgt . Col n- Bez

was t he per son who act ual l y served Pagn wi t h hi s suspensi on not i ce

i n 2006. He was aware t hat t he suspensi on was r el at ed t o domest i c

vi ol ence but made no f ur t her i nqui r i es. 8 Sgt . Col n- Bez was

Pagn' s di r ect super i or on t he ni ght f ol l owi ng t he shoot i ng, but he

had no di r ect i nvol vement wi t h the act ual event s l eadi ng up t o t he

shoot i ng, nor di d he gi ve any assi gnment s t o Pagn l eadi ng t o t he

shoot i ng. I n f act , Sgt . Col n- Bez was on hi s day of f on August

11, 2007.

I I I .

We begi n wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' appeal of t he gr ant of

summary j udgment i n f avor of t he supervi sor y def endant s. We r evi ew

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment de novo, r eadi ng t he

f act s and dr awi ng al l i nf er ences i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s. See Pi neda v. Toomey, 533 F. 3d 50, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Summary j udgment i s pr oper i f t here i s no genui ne di sput e of

mat er i al f act and t he def endant s ar e ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a

mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) .

A. Super vi sor y Li abi l i t y Under 1983

The def endant s st r ongl y ur ge t hat t hi s case be used as a

vehi cl e t o r ecast t he cont our s of super vi sor y l i abi l i t y i n t he

8 The di ssent assumes t hat Sgt . Col n- Bez " kn[ ew] f ul l wel lof Pagn' s vi ol ent past , " but we see not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t osuppor t t hat specul at i on. The di ssent goes on t o say t hat Sgt .Col n- Bez di d not r evi ew Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e, "whi ch woul dhave uncover ed" t hat "vi ol ent past . "

-20-


21/46

af t er mat h of Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662 ( 2009) . We see no

r eason t o do so or t o addr ess what i s a hypothet i cal argument . The

pl ai nt i f f s ' case agai nst t he super vi sor s si mpl y i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o

meet t hi s ci r cui t ' s st andar ds as ar t i cul at ed bef or e and r ei nf or ced

af t er I qbal .

Ther e ar e a number of cl ear r ul es governi ng super vi sor y

l i abi l i t y under 1983. Fi r st , t he subor di nat e' s behavi or must

have caused a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on, al t hough t hat al one i s not

suf f i ci ent . See, e. g. , Wel ch v. Ci ampa, 542 F. 3d 927, 937 ( 1st

Ci r . 2008) ; Sanchez v. Al var ado, 101 F. 3d 223, 227 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

Her e, t her e i s a j ur y ver di ct est abl i shi ng Pagn' s and t he ot her

t wo of f i cer s' vi ol at i on of const i t ut i onal r i ght s.

Addi t i onal l y, t he t or t t heor y of r espondeat super i or does

not al l ow i mposi t i on of super vi sor y l i abi l i t y under 1983. See,

e. g. , Gr aj al es v. P. R. Por t s Aut h. , 682 F. 3d 40, 47 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) . Pr oof t hat t he super vi sor s wer e negl i gent i s al so

i nsuf f i ci ent . See, e. g. , Ramos v. Pat naude, 640 F. 3d 485, 490 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ; Febus- Rodr i guez v. Bet ancour t - Lebr on, 14 F. 3d 87, 92

( 1st Ci r . 1994) ( "[ A] super vi sor cannot be hel d l i abl e f or mer el y

negl i gent acts. ") . Fur t her , 1983 l i abi l i t y cannot r est sol el y on

a def endant ' s posi t i on of aut hor i t y. Ocasi o- Her nndez v. For t uo-

Bur set , 640 F. 3d 1, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Ayal a- Rodr guez v.

Rul l n, 511 F. 3d 232, 236 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) .

-21-


22/46

Af t er I qbal , as bef or e, we have st r essed t he i mpor t ance

of showi ng a st r ong causal connect i on bet ween t he super vi sor ' s

conduct and t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. See Fel i ci ano- Her nndez

v. Per ei r a- Cast i l l o, 663 F. 3d 527, 533 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "[ A]

super vi sor may not be hel d l i abl e f or t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons

commi t t ed by hi s or her subor di nat es, unl ess t her e i s an

af f i r mat i ve l i nk bet ween t he behavi or of a subor di nat e and t he

act i on or i nact i on of t he super vi sor . . . such t hat t he

super vi sor ' s conduct l ed i nexor abl y t o t he const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on. " ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Sot o- Tor r es v.

Fr at i cel l i , 654 F. 3d 153, 158 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) ) . The showi ng of causat i on must be a st r ong one, as

t hat r equi r ement "cont empl at es proof t hat t he super vi sor ' s conduct

l ed i nexor abl y t o t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. " Hegar t y v.

Somer set Cnt y. , 53 F. 3d 1367, 1380 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( emphasi s

added) .

I n addi t i on, t he super vi sor must have not i ce of t he

unconst i t ut i onal condi t i on sai d t o l ead t o t he cl ai m. Fel i ci ano-

Her nndez, 663 F. 3d at 533 ( " [ T] he pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he

of f i ci al had act ual or const r uct i ve not i ce of t he const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on. " ( quot i ng Rodr guez- Gar c a v. Mi r anda- Mar n, 610 F. 3d

756, 768 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; i d.

at 535 ( "Act ual or const r uct i ve knowl edge of a r i ght s vi ol at i on i s

a pr er equi si t e f or st at i ng any cl ai m. ") .

-22-


23/46

A pl ai nt i f f may pr ove causat i on by showi ng a "known

hi st or y of wi despr ead abuse suf f i ci ent t o al er t a super vi sor t o

ongoi ng vi ol at i ons. " Mal donado- Deni s v. Cast i l l o- Rodr i guez, 23

F. 3d 576, 582 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . However , pr oof of t hat sor t must

t r ul y show "wi despr ead" abuse; " i sol at ed i nst ances of

unconst i t ut i onal act i vi t y or di nar i l y ar e i nsuf f i ci ent . . . t o show

del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence. " I d.

Turni ng f r om causat i on t o what i t means t o be

del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent , we have t ypi cal l y f or mul at ed t he

del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence i nqui r y as a t hr ee- par t t est t hat r equi r es

pl ai nt i f f s t o show: ( 1) "t hat t he of f i ci al s had knowl edge of

f act s, " f r omwhi ch ( 2) "t he of f i ci al [ s] can dr aw t he i nf er ence" ( 3)

"t hat a subst ant i al r i sk of ser i ous har m exi st s. " Rui z- Rosa v.

Rul l n, 485 F. 3d 150, 157 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Cal der on- Or t i z v. Laboy- Al var ado, 300 F. 3d 60, 65 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Bowen v.

Ci t y of Manchest er , 966 F. 2d 13, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

B. Appl i cat i on of Super vi sor y Li abi l i t y St andar ds

The st r ongest of t he pl ai nt i f f s' ar guments9 depends on

9 We di spose qui ckl y of a si de argument . The pl ai nt i f f s havenot poi nt ed t o any evi dence of "wi despr ead" abuse t hat woul d have

al er t ed t he super vi sors t o "ongoi ng" syst emi c const i t ut i onalvi ol at i ons. See Mal donado- Deni s, 23 F. 3d at 582. The pl ai nt i f f s'evi dence cent er s ent i r el y on t he Ccer es shoot i ng and t he of f i cer si nvol ved wi t h i t . Wi t hout evi dence of "wi despr ead" abuse and"ongoi ng" const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons, t he pl ai nt i f f s' case cannotsur vi ve summary j udgment on a syst emi c abuse t heor y. See i d. ; seeal so Est at e of Bennet t v. Wai nr i ght , 548 F. 3d 155, 178 n. 7 ( 1st

-23-


24/46

t he t heor y that Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y recor d, especi al l y as t o t he

subst ant i at ed compl ai nt s of domest i c vi ol ence, shoul d have l ed t he

super vi sor y def endant s t o have knowl edge of f act s f r om whi ch t hey

woul d have i nf er r ed t hat Pagn posed a subst ant i al r i sk of doi ng

ser i ous har m t o ot her s. Thi s shoul d have pr ompt ed t hem t o t ake

act i on, other t han what t hey di d do, t o pr event such harm. The

pl ai nt i f f s al so bui l d on t hi s cent r al cl ai m by al l egi ng t hat

var i ous def endant s wer e del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t he PRPD' s

i nadequat e pr ocedur es f or r evi ewi ng and di ssemi nat i ng di sci pl i nar y

r ecor ds. I f Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y r ecor d was i nsuf f i ci ent on

causat i on - - t hat i s, i f i t was not suf f i ci ent t o put t he

super vi sor y def endant s on not i ce of subst ant i al r i sk of ser i ous

har m t o ot her s - - t hen t hese al l egat i ons about i nadequat e

pr ocedur es ar e besi de t he poi nt .

The pl ai nt i f f s al so make some weak cl ai ms unr el at ed t o

Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y r ecor d. They al l ege t her e wer e i nsuf f i ci ent

pr ocedur es f or r evi ewi ng of f i cer - i nvol ved shoot i ngs. But , as t he

pl ai nt i f f s' exper t expl ai ned, nei t her Pagn nor t he t wo ot her

of f i cer s at t he scene had shot anyone bef or e and so t he causal l i nk

f ai l s. To t he ext ent t he pl ai nt i f f s show t her e was an unr el at ed

shoot i ng el sewhere t hat Pagn had wi t nessed r oughl y a week bef ore,

Ci r . 2008) ( hol di ng evi dence i nsuf f i ci ent t o qual i f y as wi despr eadunder Mal donado- Deni s when pl ai nt i f f pr oduced evi dence that of f i cerwho f at al l y shot ment al l y i l l vi ct i m had pr evi ousl y shot anot herment al l y i l l i ndi vi dual ) .

-24-


25/46

t her e was no causal r el at i onshi p t o Pagn' s shoot i ng i n ent i r el y

di f f er ent ci r cumst ances on August 11, 2007.

1. Cl ai med Del i berat e I ndi f f erence to Pagn' sDi sci pl i nar y Recor d

Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y r ecor d evi denced seven i nst ances of

al l eged mi sconduct over a near l y f our t een- year per i od. That r ecor d

was not suf f i ci ent t o put super vi sor s on not i ce t hat he pr esent ed

a "subst ant i al , " " unusual l y ser i ous, " or "gr ave r i sk" of shoot i ng

an ar r est ee. See Rui z- Rosa, 485 F. 3d at 157; Fi guer oa- Tor r es v.

Tol edo- Dvi l a, 232 F. 3d 270, 279 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ; Bowen, 966 F. 2d

at 17; accor d Cami l o- Robl es v. Hoyos, 151 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) . Nor di d i t gi ve not i ce he r equi r ed di sci pl i ne beyond t hat

al r eady gi ven t o hi m.

We do not di scount t he ser i ousness of t he domest i c

vi ol ence al l egat i ons. We t hi nk t he commi ssi on of t hese act s by

Pagn agai nst hi s gi r l f r i end i s i ndeed r el evant t o whet her Pagn

coul d be t hought t o pose a t hr eat of vi ol ence to ot hers when he was

on of f i ci al dut y. We di sagr ee wi t h t he pr oposi t i on t hat pr i vat e

domest i c abuse i s not r el evant t o t he ri sk of an of f i cer abusi ng

hi s publ i c posi t i on wi t h vi ol ence. Nonet hel ess, i n l i ght of al l of

t he f act s her e, t he causal connect i on t he pl ai nt i f f s at t empt t o

dr aw i s i nsuf f i ci ent as a mat t er of l aw t o i mpose super vi sor yl i abi l i t y even on t hose super vi sor s who knew of t he cont ent of

Pagn' s di sci pl i nary record, much l ess on t hose who di d not know.

-25-


26/46

The domest i c abuse event s t ook pl ace i n 1998, near l y ni ne

years bef ore t he shoot i ng. The compl ai nt about t hem was handl ed

ser i ousl y by t he PRPD. The PRPD i nvest i gat i on f ound t hat Pagn had

made ver bal t hr eat s and made t hreat s usi ng hi s weapon, but di d not

f i nd he had act ed on t hose t hr eat s or i nf l i ct ed physi cal har m on

ot hers, much l ess used hi s weapon t o shoot anyone. Fur t her , Pagn

was prompt l y sent f or eval uat i on by the Domest i c Vi ol ence uni t , hi s

f i r ear m was t aken away, and he was suspended. Once Pagn and t he

compl ai nant ' s r el at i onshi p ended, t her e wer e no ot her domest i c

abuse compl ai nt s f i l ed agai nst Pagn. I mpor t ant l y, whi l e Tol edo-

Dvi l a had r ecommended t ermi nat i on based onl y on t he pre- hear i ng

al l egat i ons, t hat r ecommendat i on was not deemed sui t abl e af t er

Pagn was gi ven a hear i ng. I ndeed, Tol edo- Dvi l a sai d t he evi dence

at t he hear i ng compel l ed t hat r educt i on of t he di sci pl i ne t o a

suspensi on f or a per i od of t i me. Pagn di d r ecei ve si gni f i cant

di sci pl i ne af t er t he hear i ng: a si xt y- day suspensi on wi t hout pay.

A r easonabl e of f i ci al woul d t hi nk t hat suspensi on woul d have a

det er r ent ef f ect . I ndeed, t he handl i ng of t he char ges i n a ser i ous

manner seemed t o have t hat ef f ect , f or t here were no ot her domest i c

abuse cl ai ms made agai nst Pagn af t er t he charges were br ought .

Thi s evi dence i s si mpl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o show t he needed causal

r el at i onshi p between the 1998 domest i c abuse compl ai nt and the

August 11, 2007 shoot i ng. Even af t er t hor oughl y i nvest i gat i ng t he

compl ai nt , t he PRPD Super i nt endent di d not concl ude that t he event s

-26-


27/46

showed t hat Pagn was t oo dangerous t o be i n a posi t i on i n whi ch he

woul d encount er ci vi l i ans. The r ecord does not evi dence any causal

l i nk bet ween t he two event s.

Onl y a si ngl e ot her i t emi n Pagn' s r ecor d - - a compl ai nt

about assaul t i ng a mot or cycl i st i n 2004 - - r eveal ed any addi t i onal

pot ent i al t endency of vi ol ence t owar d ci vi l i ans. 10 But t he r ecor d

does not show t hat t hi s compl ai nt was subst ant i ated i n any way, nor

does i t gi ve any i nf or mat i on about t he cont ent s of t he compl ai nt .

These i nst ances si mpl y do not r i se t o t he l evel of a

"subst ant i al " or "unusual l y ser i ous" r i sk of shoot i ng a ci vi l i an

t hat t he case l aw demands. Cf . Bar r et o- Ri ver a v. Medi na- Vargas,

168 F. 3d 42, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( f i ndi ng del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence t o

gr ave r i sk of vi ol ence based on di sci pl i nar y r ecor d i ncl udi ng

t hi r t y i nci dent s of abuse of power , unl awf ul use of f or ce, or

physi cal assaul t , wi t h si x i nci dent s gener at i ng r ecommendat i ons of

expul si on) . I n cont r ast t o t he gr ave r i sk pr esent ed i n

Bar r et o- Ri ver a, t he di sci pl i nar y r ecor d her e showed no pr i or

i nci dent s of Pagn' s assaul t i ng ar r est ees or shoot i ng hi s weapon

unj ust i f i abl y, acr oss mor e t han a decade of Pagn' s pol i ce ser vi ce.

10 The di ssent count s f our "par t i cul ar l y vi ol ent " epi sodes of

mi sconduct i n Pagn' s f i l e, pr esumabl y count i ng each of t he t hr eedomest i c vi ol ence i nci dent s separ at el y and i gnor i ng t he f act t hatt he al l egat i ons r egar di ng t he mot or cycl i st wer e not subst ant i at ed.But parsi ng out t he i ndi vi dual event s woul d have been i mpossi bl ef or t he t wo super vi sor s t he di ssent woul d hol d l i abl e, si nce, ast he pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves ar gue, t he di sci pl i nar y f i l e di d noti ncl ude t he under l yi ng f act s of t he pr i or i nci dent s.

-27-


28/46

Wi t hout such a r ecor d, t he super vi sory def endant s cannot be sai d to

have i gnored a gr ave r i sk of har m. 11 The r emai ni ng t heor i es of

l i abi l i t y l ar gel y depend on t he asser t i ons t hat t he super vi sor y

def endant s' f ai l ur e t o t ake act i on based on Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y

r ecord met t he causat i on r equi r ement , whi ch we have r ej ect ed.

2. I nsuf f i ci ent Procedures f or Revi ewi ng Di sci pl i naryRecor ds

The pl ai nt i f f s next ar gue t hat Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s' s

f ai l ur e t o revi ew Pagn' s r ecor d at t he t i me Pagn j oi ned t he TOD

was causal l y r el at ed t o t he shoot i ng, t hat l ower - l evel super vi sor s

f r equent l y f ai l ed t o r evi ew di sci pl i nar y r ecor ds at t he r el evant

t i mes, and t hat t he r ecor ds di d not cont ai n enough i nf or mat i on t o

al l ow l ower - l evel super vi sor s t o meani ngf ul l y revi ew t hei r

subor di nat es' r ecor ds. 12

11 The di ssent expr esses concer n t hat our r ul i ng al l ows t he

pol i ce a " f r ee bi t e at t he appl e. " Not so. A super vi sor who hasknowl edge of and del i ber at el y i gnor es a subor di nat e' s hi st or y ofvi ol ent event s may wel l be l i abl e f or t hat subor di nat e' s l at ervi ol ent act s, even i f t hey ar e of a di f f er ent ki nd t han t he pastact s. What di st i ngui shes t hi s case i s not t he f act t hat Pagn' sdi sci pl i nar y r ecor d showed of f - dut y domest i c vi ol ence r at her t hanassaul t i ng a ci vi l i an whi l e on dut y. Rat her , i t i s the f act t hatt he si ngl e domest i c vi ol ence compl ai nt on t hi s r ecor d - - whi ch wasf r om near l y ni ne year s bef or e t he shoot i ng, was meani ngf ul l yi nvest i gated, l ed t o meani ngf ul sanct i ons, and was f ol l owed by nor epeat behavi or - - i s f ar f r om suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat Pagnhad t he "vi ol ent t endenci es" t he di ssent ascr i bes t o hi m, or t o

est abl i sh t hat hi s super vi sor s shoul d have known he posed a "graver i sk" of vi ol ence t owar d ci vi l i ans i n 2007.

12 The di ssent assumes t hat a pr oper r evi ew of t he di sci pl i nar yf i l es woul d have r eveal ed t hat Pagn was unf i t f or dut y, i gnor i ngt he pl ai nt i f f s' own ar gument t hat t he f i l es di d not i ncl ude enoughi nf or mat i on t o al l ow l ower - l evel super vi sor s t o make t hat

-28-


29/46

These al l eged er r or s pl ai nl y f ai l on t he causat i on pr ong,

and so we need not deci de whet her t hi s t heory i s act ual l y one of a

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. Even i f Sgt . Fi guer oa- Sol i s had r evi ewed

Pagn' s f i l e at t he appr opr i at e t i me, t he f i l e woul d not have

demonst r ated t hat Pagn had a pr ocl i vi t y f or vi ol ence or was unf i t

f or dut y. I t i s t r ue t hat a pol i cy change i nst i t ut ed by

Tol edo- Dvi l a r emoved t he det ai l s of t he of f ense f r om t he f i l e

memoranda i mposi ng t he di sci pl i nary measur es. But t hi s pol i cy

change i t sel f creat es no l i abi l i t y wi t h r espect t o Tol edo- Dvi l a.

That ar gument , whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s have not subst ant i al l y

devel oped, f ai l s on t he subst ant i al r i sk pr ong. The pl ai nt i f f s

have pr oduced no evi dence t o show t hat t hi s pol i cy cr eated a

substant i al r i sk of subor di nat e of f i cer s' vi ol at i ng t he

const i t ut i onal r i ght s of ar r est ees.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he PRPD' s f ai l ur e t o puni sh

ser i ousl y Pagn' s past di sci pl i nar y vi ol at i ons amount ed t o

super vi sory condonat i on of hi s pr act i ces. But t her e i s no showi ng

he posed a subst ant i al r i sk, much l ess t hat hi s suspensi on was

i nadequat e t o t he of f ense. The pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument al so f ai l s

because i t depends on t he i nf er ence t hat i nsuf f i ci ent sanct i oni ng

det er mi nat i on. Mor eover , t o t he extent t hat t he di ssent arguest hat a more t horough revi ew woul d have f ound Pagn unf i t f orser vi ce on t he I mpact Uni t i n par t i cul ar - - as appear s t o be t hedi ssent ' s pr i mar y compl ai nt agai nst Sgt . Col n- Bez - - t he di ssentnever expl ai ns how t he deci si on t o pl ace Pagn on t he I mpact Uni twas causal l y rel at ed t o the shoot i ng.

-29-


30/46

f or past pr obl ems l ed Pagn t o bel i eve t hat he coul d get away wi t h

mor e bad act s - - l i t er al l y, mur der . Under Febus- Rodr i guez v.

Bet ancour t - Lebr on, 14 F. 3d 87 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) , t hat argument cannot

save t he pl ai nt i f f s' case. See i d. at 94 ( expl ai ni ng t hat i t i s

"si mpl y t oo t enuous" t o dr aw an i nf er ence that "because Of f i cer

Rodr guez had not been sanct i oned wi t h r espect t o [ hi s past ] f i ve

[ di sci pl i nar y] i nci dent s, he bel i eved he coul d get away wi t h

anyt hi ng, i ncl udi ng assaul t i ng Febus" ) . Mor e di r ect pr oof of

causat i on i s needed, and t he record pr ovi des none.

3. I nsuf f i ci ent Pr ocedur es f or Revi ewi ngOf f i cer - I nvol ved Shoot i ngs

The pl ai nt i f f s next ar gue t hat t he super vi sor y def endant s

di d not ensur e t hat suf f i ci ent pr ocedur es wer e i n pl ace f or

r evi ewi ng of f i cer - i nvol ved shoot i ngs. Thi s ar gument does not t ur n

on Pagn' s per sonal char act er i st i cs but i s gener i c.

The pl ai nt i f f s ur ge us t o i nf er t hat , had Pagn and hi s

compani ons known t hat a meani ngf ul i nvest i gat i on woul d f ol l ow any

shoot i ng t hey mi ght commi t , Pagn woul d have been l ess l i kel y t o

shoot Ccer es. The pl ai nt i f f s shar pen t hi s t heor y by ar gui ng t hat

i f more had been done about anot her shoot i ng, whi ch t hey argue

Pagn wi t nessed, t hat woul d have det er r ed hi m f r om shoot i ng

Ccer es. On August 5, 2011, t he week bef ore Pagn' s shoot i ng ofCcer es, Pagn and Sust ache were on dut y at a yout h f est i val at

whi ch anot her of f i cer shot a 21- year - ol d sever al t i mes, ki l l i ng

hi m. The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat Pagn wi t nessed t hat shoot i ng but

-30-


31/46

was not i nt er vi ewed i n any subsequent i nvest i gat i on. Thi s t heor y

t wi ce f ai l s: i t t r i es t o pr ove causat i on usi ng onl y negl i gence, and

t he causal l i nk bet ween t hat negl i gence and the Ccer es shoot i ng i s

ent i r el y specul at i ve. We have al r eady hel d t hat such a t heor y,

even on much st r onger f act s, was "si mpl y too t enuous" t o suppor t

r ecover y. Febus- Rodr i guez, 14 F. 3d at 94.

I V.

We next t ur n t o t he super vi sory def endant s' appeal of t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t hei r ear l i er mot i on t o di smi ss

pl ai nt i f f s' 1983 cl ai ms f or qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

The summar y j udgment i n def endant s' f avor moot s t he

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i ssue. We decl i ne t o of f er a hypot het i cal

opi ni on on t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i ssue i n t hi s case.

V.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of

summary j udgment , at i ssue i n No. 13- 1169, i s af f i r med. The appeal

i n No. 11- 2339 i s di smi ssed. No cost s ar e awarded.

So or der ed.

- Di ssent i ng Opi ni on Fol l ows -

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting

in part. Consi der i ng t he evi dence on r ecord, and dr awi ng al l

r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng pl ai nt i f f s, I

bel i eve t he maj or i t y j udges ar e i ncor r ect i n af f i r mi ng t he gr ant of

-31-


32/46

summary j udgment as t o al l supervi sor y def endant s. Though a cl ose

cal l , I f i nd t her e ar e quest i ons of mat er i al f act r egar di ng t he

super vi sor y l i abi l i t y of Cr uz- Snchez and Col n- Bez t hat have

i mpr oper l y been kept f r om a j ur y. 13

Speci f i cal l y, I bel i eve t her e ar e quest i ons of f act on

whet her of f i cer s Cr uz- Snchez and Col n- Bez wer e on not i ce of

Pagn' s ser i ousl y vi ol ent t endenci es. I al so bel i eve i t shoul d be

up t o a j ur y t o det er mi ne whet her t he f ai l ur e of t hese super vi sor y

of f i cer s t o t ake any measur es t o pr event or at l east mi t i gat e t he

gr ave r i sk t hat Pagn posed t o t he const i t ut i onal r i ght s of ot her s

i s causal l y r el at ed t o t he shoot i ng deat h of Ccer es. Accor di ngl y,

I r espect f ul l y di ssent .

I. Background

Revi ew of a di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment i s

de novo. Eur omodas, I nc. v. Zanel l a, Lt d. , 368 F. 3d 11, 16 ( 1st

Ci r . 2004) . I n conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew, we dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng par t y. Col l azo v. Ni chol son,

535 F. 3d 41, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . "Summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate

wher e t her e exi st s no genui ne i ssue of mater i al f act and t he movi ng

par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " I d.

A. Pagn' s r ecor d and appoi nt ment t o t he TOD and t he I U

13 I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y' s opi ni on as t o t he r emai ni ngdef endant s on appeal .

-32-


33/46

Pr i or t o f at al l y shoot i ng Ccer es, Pagn had seven

compl ai nt s on hi s PRPD di sci pl i nar y r ecor d. These i ncl uded a

compl ai nt f or i nsubor di nat i on, one f or domest i c vi ol ence, and one

f or assaul t on a mot or cycl i st . The l at t er was, however , f ound t o

be unsubst ant i at ed by t he PRPD. The pl ai nt i f f s have pr ovi ded some

f or m of pr oof f or each of t he seven compl ai nt s.

The pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument r est s i n l ar ge par t on t he

domest i c vi ol ence compl ai nt , f i l ed by Pagn' s t hen gi r l f r i end,

whi ch i t sel f encompassed thr ee act s of ser i ous vi ol ence and pol i ce

i mpr opr i et y by Pagn i n 1998. I n t he f i r st i nci dent , Pagn st r uck

hi s gi r l f r i end and, whi l e br andi shi ng hi s f i r ear m, t hr eat ened her

wi t h deat h. I n t he second i nci dent , Pagn vi si t ed hi s gi r l f r i end' s

home car r yi ng a gun he had t aken f r om an ar r est ee. He br andi shed

t he gun and swore he woul d ki l l t he ar r est ee whom t he weapon

bel onged t o. He t hen st or ed t he weapon at hi s gi r l f r i end' s

apar t ment f or a f ew days. Fi nal l y, af t er t hei r r el at i onshi p had

ended, Pagn st or med i nt o hi s ex- gi r l f r i end' s apar t ment and once

agai n assaul t ed and thr eatened her .

The PRPD' s i nvest i gat i on of t he domest i c vi ol ence

compl ai nt f i l ed by Pagn' s gi r l f r i end began i n 1998. Pagn di d not

r ecei ve a sanct i on, however , unt i l August 2004, when t hen

Super i nt endent Agust n Car t agena or der ed hi s expul si on f r om t he

f orce. Whi l e t he order of expul si on agai nst Pagn was pendi ng,

Cr uz- Snchez promot ed Pagn to t he Humacao Tact i cal Oper at i ons

-33-


34/46

Di vi si on ( "TOD") . Cr uz- Snchez was Di r ect or of t he TOD at t he

t i me. The TOD i s a speci al i zed t eamof "el i t e" of f i cer s wi t hi n t he

PRPD who r ecei ve addi t i onal t r ai ni ng f or par t i cul ar l y sensi t i ve

si t uat i ons. Cr uz- Snchez di d not assess Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y

hi st ory bef ore pr omot i ng Pagn t o t he TOD.

I n ear l y 2005, def endant Tol edo- Dvi l a t ook on t he j ob of

Super i nt endent , and i n December 2005, he rei ssued Pagn' s or der of

expul si on. Af t er Pagn sought i nt er nal admi ni st r at i ve r evi ew of

t hi s sanct i on, Tol edo- Dvi l a reduced hi s puni shment t o a si xt y- day

suspensi on wi t hout pay. Col n- Bez ser ved Pagn t he suspensi on

paper s.

Pagn ser ved hi s suspensi on f r omAugust 23 t o Oct ober 22,

2006. At t hat t i me, Cr uz- Snchez was st i l l Di r ect or of t he TOD,

wi t h Col n- Bez as Assi st ant Di r ect or . Upon compl et i on of hi s

suspensi on, Pagn i mmedi at el y r ej oi ned t he TOD. Though PRPD

r egul at i ons r equi r e that of f i cer s comi ng back f r om suspensi on be

sent i ni t i al l y t o Repl acement Cent er s, none of t he super vi si ng

of f i ci al s t ook any act i on t o t r ansi t i on Pagn back i nt o ser vi ce.

I n J anuar y 2007, shor t l y af t er Pagn served hi s suspensi on, Cr uz-

Snchez eval uat ed Pagn and gave hi mst el l ar r evi ews. He admi t s he

di d so wi t hout r evi ewi ng Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e, or ot her wi se

i nvest i gat i ng hi s di sci pl i nar y hi st or y. Thi s eval uat i on was seven

mont hs bef ore t he shoot i ng of Ccer es.

-34-


35/46

A f ew mont hs l at er i n t he summer of 2007, def endant

Ri ver a- Mer ced, a hi gh r anki ng PRPD of f i ci al , sought t o cr eat e a

speci al i zed I mpact Uni t ( "I U") wi t hi n t he TOD, f or i nt er vent i on i n

hi gh cr i me ar eas. Cr uz- Snchez devel oped t he oper at i onal pl an f or

t he I U, and Col n- Bez hand- pi cked Pagn f or t he uni t ; Pagn was

agai n pr omot ed. Nei t her Cr uz- Snchez nor Col n- Bez r evi ewed

Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e or ot her wi se pr obed hi s di sci pl i nar y

backgr ound bef ore accept i ng Pagn i nt o t he I U.

B. The murder of Cceres and t he i mmedi at e af t ermat h

I wi l l spar e t he det ai l s of Ccer es' s execut i on. Suf f i ce

i t t o say t hat t he shoot i ng was caught on vi deo and t he

ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng i t ar e not i n di sput e.

I mmedi at el y af t er t he mur der of Ccer es, Pagn and t he

t wo ot her def endant l i ne of f i cer s who wer e pr esent at t he shoot i ng

l ef t f or Ryder Hospi t al near by i n Humacao. The f i r st t o ar r i ve on

t he scene of Ccer es' s mur der was Detect i ve Rodr guez, who i s not

a par t y t o t hi s sui t . Af t er speaki ng t o a number of wi t nesses,

Det ect i ve Rodr guez descr i bed t he i nci dent t o Cr uz- Snchez,

apparent l y over t he phone or r adi o. Cr uz- Snchez was t he hi ghest

r anki ng of f i cer i n t he Humacao ar ea t hat eveni ng. Det ect i ve

Rodr guez t ol d Cr uz- Snchez t hat he had no doubt t he of f i cer s had

abused t hei r power . Det ect i ve Rodr guez pr epar ed a r epor t of t he

i nci dent , essent i al l y rel ayi ng t hat Pagn shot Ccer es f our t i mes

-35-


36/46

whi l e t he l at t er l ay on t he gr ound, and expr essi ng hi s vi ew t hat

t he use of deadl y f or ce was ent i r el y uncal l ed f or .

Meanwhi l e, as Det ect i ve Rodr guez was i nvest i gat i ng the

scene of t he cr i me, Cr uz- Snchez j oi ned Pagn at Ryder Hospi t al .

Col n- Bez, even t hough he was not on dut y t hat eveni ng, al so

j oi ned Cr uz- Snchez and Pagn at t he hospi t al .

As Cr uz- Snchez spoke t o Pagn and t he ot her def endant

l i ne of f i cer s f or t hei r ver si on of event s, ot her eyewi t nesses of

t he shoot i ng began t o ar r i ve at t he hospi t al and of f er ed t hei r own

account of what had t r anspi r ed: t hat Ccer es had been shot dead

whi l e l yi ng def ensel ess on t he f l oor . By t hi s t i me, Det ect i ve

Rodr guez had al r eady appr i sed Cr uz- Snchez t hat an act of pol i ce

br ut al i t y had occur r ed.

Not wi t hst andi ng cl ear l y cont r adi ct or y account s f r omot her

eyewi t nesses, t he r epor t t hat r esul t ed f r om i nf or mat i on r et ol d by

Cr uz- Snchez and Col n- Bez, adopt ed t he ver si on of Pagn, hi s

compani on of f i cer s and t hat of an Hct or Huer t as, t he onl y

byst ander i dent i f i ed by name i n t he r epor t , and, coi nci dent al l y,

t he onl y wi t ness who gave a vi ew of t he event s t hat was f avorabl e

t o Pagn. As t o t he numer ous account s unf avor abl e t o t he of f i cer s,

t he r epor t mer el y not es t hat "sever al per sons, wer e i nt er vi ewed at

t he scene" who "pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on t hat was adver se and agai nst

t he agent s. " A f ew days l ater , Cr uz- Snchez hi msel f added

i nf or mat i on t o t he r epor t r el at ed t o t he i dent i t y of wi t ness Hct or

-36-


37/46

Huer t as and not ed t hat t he l at t er ' s ver si on coi nci ded i n par t wi t h

t hat of Pagn. Cr uz- Snchez not ed t hat t hi s cor r obor at i on

compel l ed hi m t o bel i eve Pagn' s ver si on of t he i nci dent : t hat

Ccer es had t ur ned vi ol ent , at t empt ed t o wr est l e hi s gun f r om hi m,

and "sever al shot s wer e f i r ed" i n t he ski r mi sh t hat ended i n

Ccer es' s death.

The accur acy of Cr uz- Snchez' s r epor t of t he event s of

August 11, 2007 came under ser i ous doubt shor t l y t hereaf t er when,

t hanks t o a byst ander who vi deo- r ecor ded t he i nci dent , t he

execut i on of Cceres was ai r ed on t he eveni ng news a f ew days

l at er .

C. PRPD General Or der 87- 14

PRPD Gener al Or der 87- 14 ( "G. O. 87- 14") r equi r es

of f i ci al s i n super vi sor y posi t i ons t o exami ne t he per sonnel f i l e of

each and ever y of f i cer under t hei r super vi si on. Accor di ng t o G. O.

87- 14, super vi sor s must assess whet her an of f i cer i n t hei r uni t i s

of vi ol ent char act er or hol ds t he pot ent i al t o commi t ci vi l r i ght s

vi ol at i ons. A super vi sor must make t hi s i ndependent assessment

whet her or not t her e ar e subst ant i at ed compl ai nt s agai nst t he

of f i cer . G. O. 87- 14 mandat es t hat pr i or conduct of , and compl ai nt s

agai nst , t he of f i cer must be assessed i n l i ght of t he under l yi ng

f act s of t he i nci dent , and not on t he ul t i mat e r esul t of t he

compl ai nt .

-37-


38/46

II. Discussion

A super vi sor y of f i ci al may be f ound l i abl e under 42

U. S. C. 1983 f or act i ons of hi s own t hat r esul t i n vi ol at i ons of

const i t ut i onal r i ght s by a subor di nat e. Cami l o- Robl es v. Hoyos,

151 F. 3d 1, 6- 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . A super vi sor "may be l i abl e f or

t he f or eseeabl e consequences of such conduct i f he woul d have known

of i t but f or hi s del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence or wi l l f ul bl i ndness. "

Mal donado- Deni s v. Cast i l l o- Rodr guez, 23 F. 3d 576, 582 ( 1st Ci r .

1994) . To pr evai l on a t heor y of del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence, "a

pl ai nt i f f must show ( 1) a gr ave r i sk of har m, ( 2) t he def endant ' s

act ual or const r uct i ve knowl edge of t hat r i sk, and ( 3) hi s f ai l ur e

t o t ake easi l y avai l abl e measur es to addr ess t he r i sk. " Fi guer oa-

Tor r es v. Tol edo- Dvi l a, 232 F. 3d 270, 279 ( 1st Ci r . 2000)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Li abi l i t y does not at t ach on

a showi ng of del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence al one, however ; t her e must be

an af f i r mat i ve l i nk bet ween t he subor di nat e' s mi sconduct and t he

acti on, or i nacti on, of super vi sor y of f i ci al s. See I d. Thi s causal

connect i on "need not t ake t he f orm of knowi ng sanct i on, but may

i ncl ude t aci t appr oval of , acqui escence i n, or pur posef ul di sr egar d

of , r i ght s- vi ol at i ng conduct . " Hoyos, 151 F. 3d at 7 ( ci t i ng

Mal donado- Deni s, 23 F. 3d at 582 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he super vi sor

must have "had t he power and aut hor i t y t o al l evi ate [ t he

vi ol at i on] " ) ) .

-38-


39/46

To be sur e, bot h Cr uz- Snchez and Col n- Bez di sput e some

aspect s of pl ai nt i f f s' ver si on of t he f act s. Al l t he mor e r eason

t o concl ude t hat , on t hi s r ecord, summary j udgment i n f avor of

Cr uz- Snchez or Col n- Bez was i nappr opr i ate.

As t o thei r knowl edge - - deemed or other wi se - - of

Pagn' s vi ol ent t endenci es, t her e i s ar guabl y some di sput e as t o

whet her G. O. 87- 14 had been suspended, and when exact l y t hi s

suspensi on mi ght have happened. Cr uz- Snchez t est i f i ed, however ,

t hat as a super vi sor he was r esponsi bl e f or r evi ewi ng t he

di sci pl i nar y f i l es of of f i cer s under hi s super vi si on. Thi s i s

consi st ent wi t h t he t est i mony of def endant Super i nt endent Tol edo-

Dvi l a, who st at ed that al l super vi sor s wer e char ged wi t h the

r esponsi bi l i t y of r evi ewi ng subor di nat es' per sonnel f i l es. Col n-

Bez cl ai ms t hat he had no access t o Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e,

t hough t her e i s al so some di sput e as t o t hat . These quest i ons t ur n

on an assessment of cr edi bi l i t y and, accor di ngl y, ar e best l ef t f or

t he j ur y t o answer .

Movi ng on t o the puddi ng, one def endant at a t i me, Cr uz-

Snchez was a l i eut enant and f or mer Di r ect or of t he TOD, and he

per sonal l y pr omot ed Pagn t o t he TOD i n 2004. At t hat t i me, t her e

was a pendi ng expul si on or der agai nst Pagn. Though pl ai nt i f f s

di sput e t he cl ai m, Cr uz- Snchez cl ai ms he was unaware of t he

pendi ng expul si on order . Cr uz- Snchez di d admi t t hat , t hough he

was r equi r ed t o do so, he di d not r evi ew Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e.

-39-


40/46

Even assumi ng t hat he di d not know t he nat ur e or t he ext ent of t he

vi ol at i ons t hat l ed t o Pagn' s pendi ng expul si on or der , t hat G. O.

84- 17 r equi r ed hi m t o r evi ew Pagn' s f i l e - - a r equi r ement he

admi t t edl y knew of - - shoul d have compel l ed hi mt o revi ew t he f i l e.

I t i s cl ear l y a quest i on f or t he j ur y whet her t hi s ci r cumst ance i s

deemed t o put Cr uz- Snchez on not i ce of Pagn' s vi ol ent character .

Lat er , Cr uz- Snchez agai n had t he oppor t uni t y t o keep

Pagn f r om a posi t i on wher e he posed a danger t o ci vi l i ans, but

r emai ned i dl e. I n Oct ober of 2006, upon compl et i on of a si xty day

suspensi on, Cr uz- Snchez t ook Pagn r i ght back i nt o t he TOD. 14 He

agai n negl ect ed t o r evi ew Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e, despi t e t he

f act t hat he was aware that Pagn had j ust ser ved a consi der abl e

sanct i on. Two t o t hr ee mont hs l at er i n J anuar y 2007, agai n

negl ect i ng t o r evi ew Pagn' s f i l e or ot her wi se i nqui r e i nt o hi s

di sci pl i nar y hi st or y, Cr uz- Snchez eval uat ed Pagn and gave hi m

st el l ar r evi ews, wi t h hi gh mar ks on t he cat egor y of sel f - cont r ol .

Seven mont hs l ater , Ccer es l ay dead on t he gr ound. I n f act , Cr uz-

Snchez had perhaps one more oppor t uni t y t o t ake act i on. And i t

14 The maj or i t y j udges cont end t hat i t was Ri ver a- Mer ced' sdeci si on t o accept Pagn back i nt o the TOD i mmedi atel y f ol l owi nghi s suspensi on, and not Cr uz- Snchez' s. Ri ver a- Mer ced - - who al socl ai ms i gnor ance of Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y hi st or y - - as Commander of

t he Humacao ar ea had t he aut hor i t y t o assi gn Pagn t o any posi t i onwi t hi n t he Humacao area. There i s no evi dence, however , t hatRi ver a- Merced act ual l y or dered t hat Pagn be accept ed back on t heTOD. Mor e i mpor t ant l y, t hat Ri ver a- Mer ced was hi gher up t hehi er ar chi cal l adder di d not r el i eve Cr uz- Snchez of hi s own dut y,as Di r ect or of t he TOD, of scr eeni ng r ecr ui t s and f or mi ng hi s ownassessment of t hei r sui t abi l i t y f or ser vi ce i n t he TOD.

-40-


41/46

may have come i n t he Summer of 2007 when Cr uz- Snchez desi gned t he

pl an f or t he I U, a speci al i zed squad wi t hi n t he TOD, and Col n- Bez

chose i t s members, and Pagn was al l owed t o j oi n. But agai n, no

ef f or t was made t o i nvest i gat e Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y hi st or y.

I t i s up t o t he j ur y t o consi der Pagn' s r et ur n t o t he

TOD and shor t l y t hereaf t er hi s pr omot i on t o t he I U, cl osel y

f ol l owi ng a suspensi on, al l at t he behest of Cr uz- Snchez, who

over saw t hese deci si ons and af f orded Pagn gl owi ng revi ews,

wi t hout even gl anci ng at hi s di sci pl i nar y r ecor d, much l ess

i nvest i gat i ng t he r easons f or hi s suspensi on. Sub par , pr o f or ma

eval uat i ons i n par t i cul ar concer ned us i n Gut i er r ez- Rodr guez v.

Car t agena, 882 F. 2d 553 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) , when t he super vi sor y

def endant i n t hat case gave f avor abl e r evi ews t o an of f i cer t hat

had t en compl ai nt s agai nst hi m, i ncl udi ng some epi sodes of

vi ol ence. I d. at 563, 582.

Col n- Bez pr esent s a more egregi ous case t han Cr uz

Snchez. Col n- Bez per sonal l y sel ect ed Pagn f or t he I U, knowi ng

f ul l wel l of Pagn' s vi ol ent past ; he per sonal l y ser ved Pagn wi t h

hi s suspensi on papers and admi t t ed knowi ng t hat t he sanct i on was

t he r esul t of domest i c vi ol ence. Not wi t hst andi ng t hi s f act , Col n-

Bez chose not t o i nvest i gat e Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y hi st or y, whi ch

woul d have uncover ed sever al epi sodes of mi sconduct , i ncl udi ng a

f ew par t i cul ar l y vi ol ent ones, and sel ect ed Pagn f or t he I U on a

whi m.

-41-


42/46

The maj or i t y cont ends t hat t here i s no evi dence of Col n-

Bez' s knowl edge of Pagn' s vi ol ent past . Though t he ext ent of

Col n- Bez' s knowl edge i s ar guabl y di sput ed, t her e i s no quest i on

t hat he was aware t hat Pagn ser ved a consi derabl e suspensi on f or

an epi sode of domest i c vi ol ence. Fur t her more, had he pr obed t he

mat t er , as he was r equi r ed t o do, he woul d have di scovered t hat

Pagn had bat t er ed hi s ex- gi r l f r i end and t hr eat ened her wi t h deat h

whi l e br andi shi ng hi s f i r ear m.

As t o Col n- Bez, a r at i onal j ur y coul d concl ude t hat he

r el i ed on no cr i t er i a f or sel ect i ng pr ospect i ve member s of t he I U,

and i n Pagn' s case i n par t i cul ar , decl i ned t o r evi ew hi s per sonnel

f i l e or assess hi s di sci pl i nar y backgr ound. I st r ess t hat Col n-

Bez' s i nacti on i s par t i cul ar l y obj ecti onabl e gi ven t hat i t i s

undi sput ed t hat he was awar e t hat Pagn f aced di sci pl i nar y act i on

due t o vi ol ent conduct . A r at i onal j ur y coul d easi l y concl ude t hat

awareness of Pagn' s suspensi on shoul d have, at t he ver y l east , put

hi m on not i ce of Pagn' s vi ol ent char act er .

The maj or i t y al so t akes t he posi t i on t hat r evi ew of

Pagn' s di sci pl i nar y f i l e woul d not have uncover ed much of hi s

vi ol ent past . Thi s i s so, t hey cont end, because at some poi nt

dur i ng hi s t enur e as Super i nt endent , Tol edo- Dvi l a l i mi t ed t he

i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n di sci pl i nar y or der s by r emovi ng t he

f act ual det ai l s under l yi ng compl ai nt s, and l i st i ng onl y t he

sanct i on. Thi s, however , does not pr ovi de shel t er t o Cr uz- Snchez

-42-


43/46


44/46

f i ndi ng t hat t hi s of f i cer was hi ghl y l i kel y t o i nf l i ct t he

par t i cul ar i nj ur y suf f er ed by t he pl ai nt i f f . ") ( emphasi s omi t t ed) .

However , i f a subor di nat e' s t hr eat s of deat h by gunf i r e agai nst

anot her person are not enough t o put a super vi sor on not i ce t hat

t he subor di nat e i s a pr i me pr ospect f or engagi ng i n such conduct i n

t he f ut ur e, i s i t r equi r ed t hat hi s super vi sor s wai t unt i l t he

subor di nate act ual l y commi t s such a cr i me bef or e cor r ect i ve or

prevent i ve measur es ar e t aken? Such a st r enuous st andar d cannot

possi bl y be t he l aw. I n t he case of Pagn, af t er one epi sode of

execut i ng a ci vi l i an, i t seems obvi ous now t hat he i s an i deal

candi dat e f or super vi sory act i on based on hi s pr oven r ecor d. For

Cceres, i t was one shot t oo many.

Accor di ngl y, out of an abundance of caut i on, I r ej ect any

r eadi ng of t he case l aw t hat appr oaches af f ordi ng def endant s one

f r ee bi t e at t he appl e. Though i n an Ei ght Amendment cont ext , our

case l aw has actual l y di savowed t he i dea - - whi ch woul d essent i al l y

amount t o r equi r i ng cl ai r voyance - - t hat t oo much speci f i cs ar e

r equi r ed. See Rui z- Rosa v. Rul l an, 485 F. 3d 150, 157 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ( "[ P] r oof of del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence by pr i son of f i ci al s does

not r equi r e evi dence t hat t he of f i ci al s wer e awar e of t he r i sk of

a speci f i c har m. " ) . I t hi nk we' ve avoi ded such a r ul e f or good

r eason.

I concede t hat whet her t he causal connect i on her e i s

suf f i ci ent , i s a cl ose quest i on, par t i cul ar l y as t o Cr uz- Snchez.

-44-


45/46

I under st and i t may seem a st r et ch t o some, at f i r st gl ance, t hat

a f ew vi ol ent epi sodes i n 1998 woul d somehow be l i nked t o anot her

vi ol ent epi sode i n 2007. However , i t i s i n par t because t hi s i s

a di f f i cul t quest i on t hat I bel i eve t he maj or i t y er r s i n not

al l owi ng t he j ur y t o f ul f i l l i t s t r adi t i onal f unct i on. Young v.

Ci t y of Pr ovi dence, 404 F. 3d 4, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( " [ Q] uest i ons of

pr oxi mat e cause ar e gener al l y best l ef t t o t he j ur y. " ) . Though

Pagn' s most egr egi ous act s of vi ol ence happened years bef ore t he

mur der of Ccer es, t he di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs r el at ed t o t hose

act s di d not concl ude unt i l ei ght year s l at er , i n Oct ober 2006,

when Pagn served hi s suspensi on onl y mont hs bef ore t he execut i on. 15

A r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude t hat Cr uz- Snchez and

Col n- Bez had sever al oppor t uni t i es t hr oughout t hese year s t o take

act i on t o pr event har m t o ci vi l i ans on behal f of Pagn, and f ai l ed

t o act up unt i l 2007. Not an unl i kel y possi bi l i t y, gi ven t hat ,

onl y mont hs l at er , he woul d car r y out t he mur der he had t hr eat ened

agai nst at l east t wo ot her peopl e i n t he past , and t ook Pagn' s

l i f e. 16

15 Respect f ul l y, I f i nd i mpr obabl e t he maj or i t y' s bel i ef t hatt he PRPD handl ed t he compl ai nt s agai nst Pagn i n a ser i ous manner .The mer e f act t hat ei ght year s el apsed bef or e Pagn r ecei ved af i nal sanct i on makes t hat pr ocedur e seem, f r ankl y, l aughabl e.

Mor eover , i n most j ur i sdi ct i ons I am awar e of , assaul t and bat t er ywi t h a deadl y weapon car r i es a sent ence of i ncar cer at i on. Thus, asi xt y day suspensi on seems qui t e i nsubst ant i al as an admi ni st r at i vesanct i on f or essent i al l y t he same conduct .

16 The maj or i t y ci t es t o Bar r et o- Ri ver a v. Medi na- Var gas, 168F. 3d 42 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) , i n suppor t of i t s f i ndi ng t hat Pagn' s

-45-


46/46

III. Conclusion

A j ur y shoul d have t he oppor t uni t y to determi ne whether

Cr uz- Snchez and Col n- Bez wer e on not i ce of t he r i sk of harm

Pagn posed t o ci vi l i ans. I t shoul d al so have t he occasi on t o

determi ne whether ei t her def endant shoul d have sei zed any of t he

oppor t uni t i es t hey had t o keep Pagn f r om act i ng out and r epeat i ng

hi s vi ol ent t endenci es. I bel i eve a r easonabl e j ur y coul d answer

bot h i nqui r i es i n t he af f i r mat i ve. A cl ai m of i gnor ance cannot

shi el d them f rom l i abi l i t y. I n f act , such a cl ai m mi ght be

pr obat i ve of del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence. Accor di ngl y, f or t hese

r easons, I di ssent .

di sci pl i nar y f i l e was not subst ant i al enough t o al ar m hi ssuper vi sors t hat he posed a gr ave r i sk of har m. I n Bar r et o- Ri ver awe f ound suf f i ci ent evi dence t o concl ude t hat a super vi soryof f i ci al was del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o, among ot her t hi ngs, adi sci pl i nar y hi st or y mor e ext ensi ve t han Pagn' s. I d. at 49. Thepr i nci pal def endant i n Bar r et o- Ri ver a had al so shot and ki l l ed aci vi l i an af t er a per sonal al t er cat i on. The br unt of our anal ysi si n Bar r et o- Ri ver a t ur ned on t he quest i on of whet her t he pr i nci pal

def endant was act i ng under col or of st at e l aw. I d. at 46- 48. Weal so f ound a causal nexus t o the super vi sor y of f i ci al ' s omi ssi onsbecause t here was a "known hi st ory of wi despr ead abuse" as evi ncedby t he pr i nci pal def endant ' s ext ensi ve di sci pl i nar y r ecor d. I d. at48- 49. I not e however , t hat Bar r et o- Ri ver a di d not set a f l oor ora cei l i ng f or di sci pl i nar y recor ds on t he quest i on of what amount s

ramirez-lluveras v. rivera-merced, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents