[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-2165



                        LUISA SOTO-RIVERA,



                     Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                v.



        DOMINISA SANTIAGO-GUADARRAMA, IN HER PERSONAL AND

         OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, RIO

                       PIEDRAS I DISTRICT,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



          [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,

                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

                                

                                

                                

     

     Luisa Soto-Rivera on brief pro se.

     Carlos Lugo Fiol, Solicitor General, Edda Serrano Blasini,

Deputy Solicitor General, and Leticia Casalduc-Rabell, Assistant

Solicitor General, on brief for appellees.











October 5, 1999







  

            Per Curiam.       Plaintiffs were  warned in two

  court orders that a failure to clarify their claims of

  political discrimination could lead to a dismissal of their

  complaint with prejudice.  They also were directed to attend

  the initial scheduling conference through a representative who

  was prepared to explain the complaint.  Although two amended

  complaints were filed, the allegations against each defendant

  remained too vague and ambiguous to enable the defendants to

  file meaningful answers.  The attorney who appeared for

  plaintiffs at the pretrial conference was not prepared to

  explain their claims,  and the response to defendants' motion

  to dismiss indicated that there would be no further

  clarification.

            Under the circumstances (1) we see no abuse of

  discretion nor other error in the dismissal with prejudice of

  the federal claims against the defendants in their individual

  capacities, and the dismissal of the supplemental state-law

  claims without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.  We also see

  (2) no basis for objection to the dismissal of the official

  capacity claims since plaintiffs conceded the ground for

  dismissal below, and (3) no prejudice to plaintiffs from the

  earlier decision that a proposed claim under the Americans with

  Disabilities Act could not be properly joined in this action. 

            We do not reach defendants' argument for a

  "heightened pleading" standard, since this complaint was

  properly dismissed for failure to comply with two court orders. 

  Cf. Judge v. Lowell, 160 F.3d 67, 73 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding

  that to protect the policies underlying the doctrine of

  qualified immunity a trial court may exercise its discretion to

  require specificity in the pleading of the element of intent). 

            The judgment is affirmed.