Professional Documents
Culture Documents
June 5, 1992
____________________
No. 91-2277
No. 91-2332
IRIS VIOLETA VALIENTE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
HON. RAMON LUIS RIVERA, ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Reina Colon
De Rodriguez,
Acting Solicitor
General, and
Car
_________________________
___
Lugo-Fiol, Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for appellants.
_________
Jesus Hernandez Sanchez and Hernandez Sanchez Law Firm, on br
_______________________
___________________________
for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam.
__________
moved for summary
the
judgment.
immunity claim,
because it was
late."
the
district court
"filed on the
denied the
eve of trial"
merits of
motion
and "comes
too
filed
complaint
in October
municipality of
1986
against
the
Valiente,
party
the
as
mayor,
but,
because
she
had
refused
to
1985, moved to
work, and
granted
a small
harassed.
to
According
room next
to the
toilet, given
no
employees
with
less
experience
and
fewer
originally
postponed to July
scheduled
for
31, 1990.
March
On July
13,
1990,
26, 1990,
but
was
defendants
-2-
filed
their
request for
instruction on qualified
date was
vacated when
jury
instruction,
which included
immunity.
1990 trial
the parties
informed the
court that
promising
settlement negotiations
mid-September,
no
settlement
trial,
because of
had
7, 1991.
On
mayor's health
When, by
materialized,
trial was
defendants sought
the
were underway.
days
three-month continuance
problems.
The
motion
was
was immediately
set.
On May
a motion
immunity.
place,
politically
were
He requested permission
summary judgment
arguing that
taken
for
law
not
motivated personnel
constitutionally
immediately
was
acted upon.
December 2, 1991.
based on
qualified
a lengthy memorandum
established
actions short
proscribed.
The
that
of discharge
motion
was
not
On November 4, 1991,
summary judgment.
plaintiffs'
contention that
the
order
judgment is
in
To
be sure, the
district court
here did
not deny
____
defendant's
not to stand
Nevertheless, as
trial is lost
no less by
See Zayas-Green
___ ___________
appeal from
the
see no basis --
distinguishing
purposes.
of it on the merits, we
defendants had . . .
district court's
23 (1st
a right
announced refusal
to
immunity
defense.").
We
have
jurisdiction
to hear
this
appeal.
III
-4-
Contrary
to
requesting permission
was not filed
granted
continuance.
the
court's
the
request
motion
defendants'
As the
ruling,
to file a motion
the
for
trial date
substantial
until December,
advance of
trial.
trial.
There was
court to rule on
it
is
dismissal,
the
that
to
clear
the
extent
from damages
motion
should
have
been
short
granted.
or constitutional
would have
known."
rights
"clearly established
of which
reasonable
Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
______
__________
457 U.S.
____________________
1. One
reason
why
the
court may
have
mistakenly
characterized the summary judgment motion as having been
filed on the eve of trial is that defendant's summary
judgment motion, ostensibly drafted before the motion for
continuance had been granted, itself stated it was being
filed on the eve of trial.
Defendant sought to excuse the
late filing by pointing to a two and a half month old First
Circuit opinion and arguing that only recently had the
applicable law crystallized. We would be faced with a far
different case had the district court not granted the
continuance. Once the continuance was granted, however, the
summary judgment request was no longer last minute and must
be viewed in the context of the new trial schedule.
-5-
Anderson v.
________
As we have
Creighton, 483
_________
U.S. 635,
639
to the
did it
become clearly
established that
the Elrod-
______
Branti
______
constitutional
prohibition
against
politically
transfers,
Ligia-Rubero,
____________
953
F.2d
and hirings.
1429
(1st
See
___
Cir.
Castro-Aponte v.
_____________
1992)
(qualified
promotion from
the
changes
present
in
case, plaintiffs
duties,
denials predating
transfers,
their
1986
complained
(demotion).
of
reduced
hours,
complaint.
As
demotion,
and
it
was
raise
not
if politically
defendant
mayor
is
motivated,
entitled
violated the
to
qualified
constitution,
immunity
from
Pursuant to First
4,
mayor's
motion requesting
November
it denied defendant
permission to
file a
motion for
judgment to
immunity from
plaintiffs'
defendant mayor
damages liability
on the
issue of
with respect
to
Amendment
rights
by
subjecting
conditions
short
of
discharge
them
(actual
to
adverse
or
working
constructive)
____________________
leave these matters to be addressed in the first instance by
the district court.
-7-