Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Torruella, Hawkins,* and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
February 1, 2016
Because the
Court below did not address a key aspect of the officials' argument
for qualified immunity, we vacate the order and remand.
I.
The
plaintiff
and
appellee
--
Elba
Falto-De
Romn
procedures,
including
procedures
regarding
42 U.S.C.
9837(c)(1)(E)(iv)(IX).
policies
and
Id.
9837(c)(2)(D)(vi).
In December of 2010, the United States Department of
Health and Human Services ("HHS") reviewed the Town's Program and
issued a very negative report.
She also
claimed that she had already provided the information that had
been requested of her.
The Program's policy council then met on September 9,
2011, at the request of the mayor.
council's
chairman
"announced
that
the
Governing
Board
had
The policy
In a September
20, 2011, letter, the mayor told Falto that the Program's governing
board and policy council had each "decided to remove [her] as
Director of the Head Start Program," and that the mayor was
"adopt[ing]" that decision, due to a "withdrawal of trust."
The
Town then ceased paying Falto in October 2011 and reported to the
Puerto Rico Department of Labor that her last day of employment
was October 5, 2011.
In response, Falto filed suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
She named as
defendants the Town, the mayor, and the members of the Program's
governing
board
and
policy
council.
See
Falto
de
Romn
v.
section 1983, in which she contended that she had been deprived of
"[t]he property interest [she] had in her continued employment" in
violation
of
her
right
to
procedural
due
process
under
the
She also
Id. at *1.
The Magistrate
- 5 -
Id.
Id. at *8.
Id. at *6.
The
Id. at *8.
In
Id. at *5-6.
The members of the Program's governing board and policy
Id. at *4-5.
Id. at *4.
He further explained that even if there had not been "a complete
termination of her employment," Falto at most remained employed
"in the abstract" as "an employee with neither title nor function"
- 6 -
after "she lost all of her duties and was left with none" and "she
was taken off payroll."
Id. at *5.
The
Judge
Magistrate
immunity issue.
then
addressed
the
qualified
Judge's
qualified
immunity
ruling
insofar
as
he
- 7 -
third
parties."
(citations,
brackets,
and
quotation
marks
omitted)).
The appellants are right that the Magistrate Judge did
not address this argument.
Stella v.
Kelley, 63 F.3d 71, 74 (1st Cir. 1995); see also Goguen v. Allen,
780 F.3d 437, 452-56 (1st Cir. 2015).
697,
701
(8th
Cir.
2014)
("Our
court,
therefore,
has
- 8 -
In
the
latter
instance,
however,
our
court
only
So ordered.
- 9 -