Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Miguel Caceres Orden Besosa Dic 2011 NotiCel

Miguel Caceres Orden Besosa Dic 2011 NotiCel

Ratings: (0)|Views: 76 |Likes:
Published by Oscar J. Serrano

More info:

Published by: Oscar J. Serrano on Dec 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
EVELYN RAMIREZ-LLUVERAS,
et al.
,
Plaintiffs,v.
JAVIER PAGAN-CRUZ,
et al.
,
Defendants.CIVIL NO.
08-1486 (FAB)
OPINION AND ORDER 
BESOSA, District Judge.This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1984 (“section 1983”) and Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico CivilCode, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141 (“article 1802”) arising fromthe highly publicized death of Miguel A. Caceres-Cruz (“Caceres”).Before the Court is Juan Colon-Baez (“Colon”), RafaelFigueroa-Solis (“Figueroa”), Victor Cruz-Sanchez (“Cruz”), EdwinRivera-Merced (“Rivera”) and Pedro Toledo-Davila’s (“Toledo”)(collectively, the “supervisory defendants”) motion for summaryjudgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (“Rule 56”). (DocketNo. 249.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS
thesupervisory defendants’ motion for summary judgment of theplaintiffs’ claims against them brought pursuant to section 1983and article 1802.
Case 3:08-cv-01486-FAB Document 338 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 34
 
Civil No. 08-1486 (FAB)2
I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND A.Procedural Backgroun
Caceres’ wife, Evelyn Ramirez-Lluveras, and their threechildren, Jenitza Caceres, MC and MAC (collectively, the“plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint on behalf of themselvesand Caceres against several field officers in the Puerto RicoPolice Department (“PRPD”), Javier Pagan-Cruz (“Pagan”), CarlosSustache-Sustache (“Sustache”), Zulma Diaz (“Diaz”) (collectively,the “field officers”) and the supervisory defendants. (Docket
1
No. 64.) Plaintiffs allege that their rights under the Fourth,Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution wereviolated when Caceres was forced to the ground by the fieldofficers and was eventually shot and killed by then Officer Paganin the Punta Santiago sector of Humacao, Puerto Rico. Id. Theyalso seek damages pursuant to article 1802.In an opinion and order dated October 3, 2011, the Courtdismissed all claims against the supervisory defendants except forplaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim in their representativecapacities, pursuant to section 1983 and article 1802. (DocketNo. 332.) On February 18, 2011, the supervisory defendants filedtheir motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. (DocketNo. 249.) Plaintiffs opposed on March 15, 2011. (Docket No. 262.)Pagan has been convicted of killing Mr. Caceres. Diaz and
1
Sustache were found not guilty by a jury.
Case 3:08-cv-01486-FAB Document 338 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 34
 
Civil No. 08-1486 (FAB)3On March 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement theiropposition to add a reference to a case decided by the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals. (Docket No. 274.) The supervisorydefendants replied to plaintiffs’ opposition on May 17, 2011.(Docket No. 297.) On May 25, 2011, plaintiffs submitted asur-reply. (Docket No. 311.)
B.Factual Backgroun1.Preliminary Evidentiary Issues
The supervisory defendants argue that plaintiffs’Statement of Material Facts (Docket No. 262) is defective becausemany of the documents on which they relied are not authenticated byand attached to an authenticating affidavit, and that plaintiffs’exhibits Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, which detail Pagan’s disciplinaryhistory, constitute inadmissible hearsay. (Docket No. 296 at¶¶ 5.3-5.13; Docket No. 297 at 4-5.)Documents must be authenticated by and attached toan affidavit to be admissible to be considered to decide a motionfor summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Carmona v. Toledo, 215F.3d 124, 131 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Orsi v. Kirkwood, 999 F.2d86, 92 (4th Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs did not provide anauthenticating affidavit for many of the exhibits they rely upon intheir Statement of Material Facts. (See, e.g., Docket No. 262 at¶¶ 5.1-5.4.) “The Court has discretion to allow a party to curedeficiencies in supporting documentation.” Goguen ex rel. Estate
Case 3:08-cv-01486-FAB Document 338 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 34

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->