USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1499
JULIO FEBUS-RODRIGUEZ AND
CATALINA RODRIGUEZ-PAGAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
ISMAEL BETANCOURT-LEBRON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jos Antonio Fust , U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
_____________________
Reina Col n-de Rodr guez, Acting Deputy Solicitor General,
________________________
Department of Justice, with whom Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Acting
_________________
Solicitor General, Edna C. Rosario-Mu oz, Department of Justice,
_____________________
Federal Litigation Division, Lou A. Delgado, Department of
________________
Justice, Federal Litigation Division, Angel L. Tapia-Flores, and
_____________________
Law Firm Tapia & Avil s, were on brief for appellants.
_______________________
Iv n A. Ramos, with whom Julio Morales-S nchez, Katarina
______________ _____________________ ________
Stipec-Rubio, and Ramos, Morales-S nchez & Ramos C mara, were on
____________ _____________________________________
brief for appellees.
____________________
January 18, 1994
____________________
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. The appellants in this case
_____________
appeal the district court's order denying their motions for
summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs Julio Febus-Rodr guez ("Febus") and his mother,
Catalina Rodr guez-Pag n, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983, claiming that during Febus' arrest on April 14, 1990, he
was assaulted by the arresting police officers and then denied
necessary medical treatment, in violation of the Fourth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Defendants1
Ismael Betancourt-Lebr n, the Superintendent of the Puerto Rico
Police Department ("Betancourt"), and Daniel Oquendo-Figueroa,
Mayor of the Municipality of Cayey ("Oquendo") moved for summary
judgment, based in part, on the grounds that the doctrine of
qualified immunity barred the suit. The district court denied
their motion. We reverse.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
_____________________
When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on
the doctrine of qualified immunity, the court must review the
facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Rogers
___ ______
v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir. 1990). The facts appearing
____
from the summary judgment materials are as follows.
On April l4, l990, Febus, who is mentally retarded, was
____________________
1 Police officers Miguel Rodr guez-Rodr guez, H ctor Rivera-
Santiago, Jos Rivera-Ortiz, the conjugal partnerships
constituted between the defendants and their wives, and the
Municipality of Cayey, Puerto Rico, are also defendants in this
action. These defendants are not, however, parties to this
appeal.
-2-
2
performing indecent gestures and breaching the peace on a public
street in Cayey, Puerto Rico. After the Puerto Rico Police
Department received a complaint about Febus' actions, police
officers H ctor Rivera-Santiago ("H ctor Rivera") and Miguel
Rodr guez-Rodr guez ("Rodr guez") arrived at the scene. A short
time later, a Cayey Municipal Guard, Jos Rivera-Ortiz ("Jos
Rivera") arrived to assist them. The three officers attempted to
speak to Febus. Febus allegedly resisted their attempts to calm
him down, and a struggle ensued. The officers then placed Febus
under arrest.
After Febus' arrest, the officers transported Febus to
the Cayey police station. From there, Officer Rodr guez and
Officer Jos Rivera took Febus to the Guayama Court, where he was
charged with breaching the peace and resisting arrest. The
officers then brought Febus back to the Cayey police station and
then released him.
Febus was severely beaten by the police officers during
his arrest and he was denied medical treatment for the injuries
he suffered.2 Febus was hospitalized from April l4, l990 to
April 24, l990. As a result of the events of April 14, 1990,
Febus is now allegedly a quadriplegic, suffering from post-
traumatic epilepsy, and aphasia.
Febus, and his mother, Catalina Rodr guez-Pag n,
____________________
2 Defendants Betancourt and Oquendo have conceded that these
events occurred for the purposes of this summary judgment motion
only. It should be noted, however, that all of the defendants
deny that Febus was beaten, or denied medical treatment on April
19, 1990, or that they in any way caused Febus' alleged injuries.
-3-
3
originally filed their complaint in this matter on April l5,
1991, against police officers Rodr guez, H ctor Rivera and Jos
Rivera, Superintendent Betancourt, and Mayor Oquendo, as well as
other defendants whose claims are not relevant to this appeal.
The plaintiffs alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming
that the three police officers severely beat Febus during his
arrest, and then denied him necessary medical treatment, thus
violating Febus' rights under the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution. The plaintiffs' claims against
Betancourt and Oquendo were based on Betancourt's position as
supervisor of Officer Rodr guez and Officer H ctor Rivera, and
Oquendo's position as supervisor of Officer Jos Rivera. The
plaintiffs claimed that Betancourt and Oquendo were grossly
negligent in their recruiting, training, and supervision of the
police officers who were involved in this incident.
To support their allegations against Betancourt and
Oquendo, the plaintiffs have proffered the expert affidavit of
Dr. Pedro Vales-Hern ndez ("Dr. Vales"), a clinical psychologist
and criminologist. After reviewing the officers' personnel
histories and the facts surrounding the events on April 14, 1990,
Dr. Vales concluded:
[I]t is evident that Policemen and
Municipal Guards are not adequately
trained within a professional orientation
where physical intervention is deemed
unnecessary. There is not a single
course in their curriculum related to
crisis intervention, recognition and
treatment of mentally [i]nsane people,
treatment of non[-]visible traumas,
[invasion] of psychological perimeters
-4-
4
while approaching a person or even how to
makea [non-violent]intervention orarrest.
Furthermore, it is our contention that
Police (or Municipal Guard) recruitment
practice[s] [are] extremely lax. People
with [deficient] academic records, poor
attitudes, and personal pathologies can
be recruited due to the lack of
rigorosity [sic] [in] the process.
Psychological assessment[s] of applicants
are limited to an interview and the
administration of a single test that will
not measure a variety of personality
traits not compatible with healthy
standards.
On May 14, 1992, Betancourt and Oquendo filed a Motion
to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, basing their motion, in
part, on the doctrine of qualified immunity. On April 7, 1993,
the district court denied their motion without explanation.
Betancourt and Oquendo then filed this interlocutory appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
________
A. Jurisdiction
"[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified
immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an
appealable 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
1291 . . ." Fonte v. Collins, 898 F.2d 284, 285 (1st Cir. 1990)
_____ _______
(quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). Because
_______ ________ _______
a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity is a question of
law in this context, appellate review is plenary. Hoffman v.
_______
Reali, 973 F.2d 980, 985 (1st Cir. 1992). Therefore, we must
_____
review the record and examine the discovered facts regarding the
conduct of Betancourt and Oquendo, and determine whether a
genuine issue does or does not exist concerning qualified
-5-
5
immunity. Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 1988).
_____ ________
B. The Summary Judgment Standard
A motion for summary judgment must be granted if:
[T]he pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "To succeed, the moving party must show
that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving
party's position." Rogers, 902 F.2d at 143. If this is
______
accomplished, the burden then "shifts to the nonmoving party to
establish the existence of an issue of fact that could affect the
outcome of the litigation and from which a reasonable jury could
find for the [nonmoving party]." Id. (citations omitted). The
___
nonmovant cannot simply rest upon mere allegations. Id.
___
Instead, the nonmoving party must adduce specific, provable facts
which establish that there is a triable issue. Id. "There must
___
be 'sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury
to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely
colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may
be granted.'" Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
___ _______ ________ ___________________
U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). We now proceed to examine the substantive
legal principles that guide our 1983 analysis.
C. Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity shields government officials
performing discretionary functions from civil damages "insofar as
-6-
6
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Hoffman,
______ __________ _______
973 F.2d at 985. On a motion for summary judgment, "the relevant
question is whether a reasonable official could have believed his
actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the
information the official possessed at the time of his allegedly
unlawful conduct." McBride v. Taylor, 924 F.2d 386, 389 (1st
_______ ______
Cir. 1991); see Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987).
___ ________ _________
As a predicate to this inquiry, however, a plaintiff must
establish that a particular defendant violated the plaintiff's
federally protected rights. See Boyle v. Burke, 925 F.2d 497,
___ _____ _____
503 (1st Cir. 1991); Rogers, 902 F.2d at 142-43; Sullivan v.
______ ________
Carrick, 888 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1989). Thus, in the context of
_______
the present summary judgment motion, we must determine whether
the plaintiffs have introduced sufficient evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact that Betancourt and Oquendo
violated Febus' constitutional rights, and if so, whether
Betancourt andOquendo areotherwise entitledto qualifiedimmunity.3
____________________
3 This appeal deals only with the claims asserted against
defendants Betancourt and Oquendo in their individual capacities.
The plaintiffs originally sued both Betancourt and Oquendo in
their individual capacities as well as their official capacities.
The district court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
against Betancourt in his official capacity as violative of the
Eleventh Amendment. The district court, however, denied
Oquendo's motion to dismiss the action against him in his
official capacity.
Betancourt and Oquendo then moved for summary judgment, in
part, on the basis of qualified immunity. The sole issue
presently before us is the district court's refusal to grant
-7-
7
D. Supervisory Liability
The plaintiffs do not contend that Betancourt or
Oquendo was personally involved in the incidents which occurred
on April 14, 1990. Rather, the plaintiffs' claims are premised
on supervisory liability. The plaintiffs contend that Betancourt
and Oquendo were grossly negligent in recruiting, training, and
supervising the police officers that intervened on April 14,
1990, and that this gross negligence rose to the level of
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Febus.
Supervisory liability may not be predicated upon a
theory of respondeat superior. Guti rrez-Rodr guez v. Cartagena,
__________ ________ ___________________ _________
882 F.2d 553, 562 (1st Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be found
liable only on the basis of his own acts or omissions. Bowen v.
_____
City of Manchester, 966 F.2d 13, 20 (1st Cir. 1992); Guti rrez-
__________________ __________
Rodr guez, 882 F.2d at 562 (citing Figueroa v. Aponte-Roque, 864
_________ ______ ________ ____________
F.2d 947, 953 (1st Cir. 1989)). Moreover, a supervisor cannot be
liable for merely negligent acts. Rather, a supervisor's acts or
omissions must amount to a reckless or callous indifference to
the constitutional rights of others. Guti rrez-Rodr guez, 882
___________________
____________________
Betancourt and Oquendo qualified immunity. Qualified immunity
"confers immunity only from individual-capacity suits, such as
suits for money damages, that have been brought against
government actors." Carmen Nereida Gonz lez v. Tirado-Delgado,
________________________ ______________
990 F.2d 701, 705 (1st Cir. 1993). Qualified immunity does not,
however, provide immunity to a governmental actor sued in his
official capacity, because an "official capacity suit is, in
reality, a suit against the governmental entity, [and] not
against the governmental actor." Id.; see generally Kentucky v.
___ _____________ ________
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-67 (1985). Thus, this appeal does not
______
affect plaintiffs' claims against Oquendo in his official
capacity, although that claim, in essence, is simply a claim
against the Municipality of Cayey.
-8-
8
F.2d at 562; see Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151, 1163 (1st
___ _________ ______
Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 820 (1989).4
_____ ______
An official displays such reckless or
callous indifference when it would be
manifest to any reasonable official that
his conduct was very likely to violate an
individual's constitutional rights.
Germany v. Vance, 868 F.2d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 1989). Moreover,
_______ _____
there must be an "affirmative link" between the supervisory
official's acts or omissions and his subordinate's violation of
the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Guti rrez-Rodr guez, 882
___________________
F.2d at 562; Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881,
_______ _________________________
902 (1st Cir. 1988).
1. Police Superintendent Betancourt
The plaintiffs contend that Betancourt's actions or
omissions constituted reckless or callous indifference in two
respects. First, the plaintiffs claim that Betancourt maintained
deficient recruiting and training practices. As evidence of this
deficiency, the plaintiffs rely on Dr. Vales' statements in his
affidavit that 1) Betancourt hired Officer Rodr guez, who had a
poor academic record in high school (demonstrating that hiring
procedures were lax); 2) Betancourt failed to administer
psychological testing to police officers he hired; 3) Betancourt
improperly trained his officers because the police academy
____________________
4 In Guti rrez-Rodr guez, 882 F.2d at 562, this Court stated
___________________
that there is "no difference of moment" between cases which use
the "gross negligence amounting to deliberate indifference"
standard and cases that use the reckless and callous indifference
standards. "[I]ndifference that rises to the level of being
deliberate, reckless, or callous suffices to establish
[supervisory] liability under 1983." Id.
___
-9-
9
curriculum contained only one course in human relations and only
one course in civil rights, and there were no classes that taught
crisis intervention, how to make nonviolent arrests, or how to
deal with mentally handicapped persons;5 and 4) Officer
Rodr guez did not receive additional training after leaving the
police academy.
With respect to claims of lack of proper police
training, when implementing and maintaining a training program,
in order to be found liable, a supervisor must demonstrate
reckless or callous indifference to the rights of citizens. See
___
Voutour v. Vitale, 761 F.2d 812, 820-21 (1st Cir. 1985), cert.
_______ ______ _____
denied, 474 U.S. 1100 (1986); see generally Guti rrez-Rodr guez,
______ ______________ ___________________
882 F.2d at 562. The plaintiffs have failed to show that
Betancourt demonstrated the requisite reckless or callous
indifference. There is no evidence that Betancourt actually knew
that there were any problems with his recruitment practices or
his training program. The plaintiffs have also failed to offer
any evidence that Betancourt should have known that there were
recruitment and training problems, and that he was indifferent to
such problems. Betancourt's recruiting practices and his
training program, on their face, do not reflect a conscious
policy to hire incompetent officers and train them inadequately.
See, e.g., Santiago v. Fenton, 891 F.2d 373, 382 (1st Cir. 1989).
___ ____ ________ ______
____________________
5 In their depositions, Officer Rodr guez and Officer H ctor
Rivera admit that, beyond standard First Aid classes, they did
not receive formal training at the police academy with respect to
how to deal with mentally handicapped persons.
-10-
10
The plaintiffs did not proffer any evidence that these specific
practices violated a legally mandated standard. See, e.g.,
___ ____
Voutour, 761 F.2d at 821. Nor did plaintiffs show that these
_______
specific practices were inferior by the standards of the
profession. See, e.g., Santiago, 891 F.2d at 382. The
___ ____ ________
plaintiffs have also failed to introduce any evidence that there
were previously any problems with officers other than Rodr guez
being improperly recruited or inadequately trained. Moreover,
plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Vales, does not opine that the
implementation or maintenance of these recruiting or training
practices constituted callous or reckless indifference. Rather,
Dr. Vales states that the recruitment practices were "extremely
lax" and officers were not "adequately trained." Perhaps the
implementation of some of these policies was negligent, but even
when we look at all of the asserted weaknesses taken together, we
fail to see how a jury could conclude that Betancourt's
implementation and maintenance of these recruitment and training
policies reflected callous or reckless indifference to the
constitutional rights of citizens. See, e.g., Bowen, 966 F.2d at
___ ____ _____
21; Manarite v. City of Springfield, 957 F.2d 953, 957-58 (1st
________ ____________________
Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 113 (1992); Santiago, 891 F.2d at
_____ ______ ________
381-82.6
____________________
6 We are somewhat troubled by Betancourt's failure to provide
officers with training about how to deal with mentally
handicapped persons. Still, we do not find that the need to
extensively train officers about how to identify and deal with
mentally handicapped persons is so obvious, that failure to give
this training supports a finding of reckless or callous
indifference to constitutional rights. Even assuming, arguendo,
________
-11-
11
The second act of reckless or callous indifference
alleged by the plaintiffs is that Betancourt was grossly
negligent in his supervision of Officer Rodr guez. As evidence
of this, the plaintiffs point to five complaints filed against
Officer Rodr guez during his career as a police officer.7 The
____________________
that Betancourt's failure to give such training was callously or
recklessly indifferent, the record is bereft of evidence that
this failure was affirmatively linked to the assault by Officers
Rodr guez and H ctor Rivera on Febus, and to their failure to
provide him with necessary medical care. For instance, there is
no evidence that Officers Rodr guez and H ctor Rivera improperly
approached Febus, who was mentally handicapped, improperly
attempted to calm him down, or that their assault of him stemmed
from the fact that they did not know how to deal with a mentally
handicapped person.
7 An examination of Officer Rodr guez' personnel history
reflects that these five complaints stemmed from the following
events:
1) On September 23, l989, Officer Rodr guez
intervened in a traffic accident, where the
driver was taken to the hospital, and while
at the hospital, the driver collapsed and
died. An autopsy revealed the driver died
because of abdominal trauma. (The personnel
history does not state what the nature of the
complaint against Officer Rodr guez was).
2) On February 10, 1987, Officer Rodr guez
went to the Caguas Court wearing a sweater,
and consequently he was inadequately dressed;
3) A citizen complained that Officer
Rodr guez made an inadequate investigation of
a hit and run that occurred on July 28, 1989;
4) On November 18, 1989, Officer Rodr guez
was driving an official vehicle at a high
speed, lost control of the vehicle, and ran
into a tree;
5) Officer Rodr guez had a child out of
wedlock.
A sixth complaint was also levied against Officer Rodr guez
-12-
12
plaintiffs also note that according to his personnel record,
Officer Rodr guez had not been re-evaluated by his supervisors.
The plaintiffs contend that Betancourt was responsible for
disciplining Officer Rodr guez, and because Betancourt failed to
do so in each of these five instances, Officer Rodr guez believed
that he was authorized to do as he pleased.
An important factor in determining whether a supervisor
is liable to the extent he has encouraged, condoned, acquiesced,
or been deliberately indifferent to the behavior of a
subordinate, is whether the official was put on notice of
behavior which was likely to result in the violation of the
constitutional rights of citizens. Lipsett, 864 F.2d at 902.
_______
[O]ne cannot make a "deliberate" or
"conscious" choice . . . to act or not to
act unless confronted with a problem that
requires taking affirmative steps. Once
an official is so notified, either
actually or constructively, it is
reasonable to infer that the failure to
_______
take such steps as well as the actual
taking of them constitutes a choice "from
______
among various alternatives." . . . One
obvious "alternative" is to do something
to make the violations stop.
Id. (citations omitted). Despite the plaintiffs' contentions to
___
the contrary, we do not find that the five complaints levied
against Officer Rodr guez provided Betancourt with the requisite
notice. The five previous complaints stemmed from incidents
completely unrelated to the present one: Officer Rodr guez had
been called to the scene of an automobile accident where the
____________________
with respect to the incident in this action involving Febus.
-13-
13
driver of the car later collapsed in the hospital and died;8 he
once wore a sweater to court; he had a child out of wedlock; he
had an accident in an official vehicle; and he allegedly
conducted a negligent investigation of a hit and run. These
complaints could not have alerted Betancourt to the fact that
Officer Rodr guez had a propensity to assault citizens, that
Officer Rodr guez denied detainees necessary medical treatment,
or that Officer Rodr guez was unable to deal appropriately with
mentally handicapped persons. Betancourt therefore did not know
that he needed to supervise Officer Rodr guez more closely, or
discipline him, in order to prevent constitutional violations in
the future. Cf. Guti rrez-Rodr guez, 882 F.2d at 563-64.
__ ___________________
(finding superintendent liable for 1983 violation because he
had knowledge of 13 citizen complaints and prior incidents that
made him aware of the policeman's frequently brutal behavior, the
superintendent took no action concerning those complaints, and he
administered a grossly deficient complaint procedure).
Betancourt's failure to sanction Officer Rodr guez with
respect to these complaints, in and of itself, did not show that
Betancourt maintained a grossly deficient complaint procedure
that inhibited proper police discipline.9 Moreover, Dr. Vales'
____________________
8 There was no indication in Officer Rodr guez' personnel
history that he should have known of the driver's need for
medical treatment, or that he denied the driver medical
treatment.
9 It is unclear from the proffered evidence that any or all of
these complaints required Betancourt to sanction Officer
Rodr guez. The plaintiffs claim that Superintendent Betancourt
violated 25 P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 25, 1014 (1979) by failing to
-14-
14
affidavit only states that there was "negligent and ineffective
supervision" of Officer Rodr guez by Betancourt. In light of
Dr. Vales' statements and the nature of the complaints against
Officer Rodr guez, any alleged failure to sanction by Betancourt
may have constituted negligence, but we cannot see how this
failure amounted to reckless or callous indifference.
As an additional ground for finding this claim
insufficient, the plaintiffs have failed to show how
Betancourt's alleged failure to discipline Officer Rodr guez was
affirmatively linked to Officer Rodr guez' alleged assault on
Febus on April 14, 1990. The inference that because Officer
Rodr guez had not been sanctioned with respect to these five
incidents, he believed he could get away with anything, including
assaulting Febus, is simply too tenuous. Dr. Vales himself
acknowledged this weak link when he stated in his affidavit that
Betancourt's ineffective supervision of Officer Rodr guez
"probably" created a belief he could do as he pleased. Because
the plaintiffs have failed to introduce sufficient evidence to
create a triable issue that the police superintendent violated
Febus' constitutional rights, Betancourt is entitled to qualified
immunity.
2. Mayor Oquendo
Mayor Oquendo is similarly entitled to qualified
____________________
either impose a sanction upon Officer Rodr guez or officially
absolve him. The plaintiffs have failed to show, however, that
each of the complaints charged incidents that fell within the
purview of the statute which establishes procedures for dealing
with "serious shortcomings."
-15-
15
immunity. The plaintiffs have failed to produce sufficient
evidence to create a triable issue that Oquendo was callously or
recklessly indifferent to his obligations to train or supervise
Officer Jos Rivera. The evidence which supports this claim
consists of Officer Jos Rivera's admission that he did not take
courses at the police academy on how to deal with mentally
handicapped persons or how to recognize when an individual is
sick,10 and Dr. Vales' observations that Officer Jos Rivera
was only trained for three months at the police academy, that
Officer Jos Rivera's performance was only evaluated twice prior
to the Febus incident, and that there was no investigatory report
in Rivera's file regarding the complaint filed against him by
Febus. This evidence is of the same general caliber, although
weaker, than that proffered against Betancourt. The plaintiffs
have not proffered any evidence that Oquendo had actual or
____________________
10 Although Officer Jos Rivera stated that he did not take a
course at the police academy on how to recognize when a person is
sick, the plaintiffs have not provided any other evidence as to
whether or not the Cayey police academy provided any first aid or
medical training to officers. Assuming that such classes were
not offered at all, the failure to provide such courses may be
negligent. There are, however, no clear constitutional
guideposts as to the precise nature of the obligations that the
Due Process Clause places upon the police to seek medical care
for pretrial detainees who have been injured while being
apprehended by the police. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
___ ______ ______
388 n.8 (1988). Therefore, given this lack of guidance as to
what degree of medical care police officers are required to
provide detainees, it is difficult to conclude that the failure
to train officers to recognize the need for medical treatment in
the first instance, in and of itself, reflects callous or
reckless indifference to constitutional rights. Additionally,
the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an affirmative link
between Oquendo's failure to provide a course on how to recognize
the need for medical treatment and Officer Jos Rivera's actual
failure to provide Febus with medical attention in this case.
-16-
16
constructive knowledge of any training or supervisory
deficiencies, or that he was indifferent to such deficiencies.
Even Dr. Vales does not conclude that Oquendo's implementation of
these practices reflected callous or reckless indifference to the
constitutional rights of citizens. We also do not believe that
the evidence is sufficient to support such a conclusion.11
The plaintiffs have failed to proffer sufficient
evidence to create a triable issue as to whether the actions of
Superintendent Betancourt and Mayor Oquendo violated Febus'
constitutional rights. Because plaintiffs have failed to
establish this predicate, Betancourt and Oquendo are entitled to
summary judgment. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the
district court, and remand with instructions to enter summary
judgment for defendants Betancourt and Oquendo.
Reversed and remanded for action consistent with this
_______________________________________________________
opinion.
_______
____________________
11 The plaintiffs claim that Oquendo failed to investigate the
complaint filed against Officer Jos Rivera with respect to the
Febus incident. Assuming, arguendo, that this investigation was
________
deficient, without any other supporting evidence of deficient
investigatory practices, this is insufficient to establish a
civil rights violation. This single poorly performed
investigation may reflect negligence, but we fail to see how it
reflects callous or reckless indifference by Oquendo to the
constitutional rights of citizens. Additionally, the affirmative
link between this alleged investigatory deficiency and Officer
Jos Rivera's violation of Febus' constitutional rights is
insufficient to establish liability. Cf. Kibbe v. Springfield,
___ _____ ___________
777 F.2d 801, 809 (1st Cir. 1985), cert. granted, 475 U.S. 1064
_____ _______
(1986), and cert. dismissed, 480 U.S. 257 (1987) (police
_____ _________
department's apparently sloppy post-shooting investigatory
procedures alone were not linked sufficiently with harm to impose
municipal liability).
-17-
17
