USCA1 Opinion

October 20, 1994

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 94-1529

WALTER TORRES MALDONADO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
JOSE CEDENO MALDONADO, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

_____________
___________________
Ortiz Ballester & Pagan on brief for appellants.
_______________________
Carlos A. Del Valle Cruz on brief for appellees.
________________________

__________________
__________________

Per Curiam.
__________
present

1983 action

renewed for
of

Several transitory employees filed the

claiming

their

contracts were

politically discriminatory reasons

their First

Padilla Ayala,
______________

Amendment rights.
92

JTS

96

in violation

Contending that

(1992),

not

established

Orta v.
_______
that

the

contracts of transitory employees properly may not be renewed

even for politically discriminatory reasons without violating
any law,

defendants moved for summary

immunity

grounds.

The

district court

reading of the Orta decision and,

judgment on qualified
rejected defendants'

citing Cheveras Pacheco v.

____
Rivera Gonzalez,
_______________

___________________

809 F.2d

court, in rejecting a

1987), where

qualified immunity defense,

that a transitory employee

of the

125 (1st Cir.

this

concluded

was protected within the confines

Branti-Elrod line of
______ _____

cases from a

non-renewal, denied defendants'

politically based

motion for summary judgment.

Defendants have now appealed.

It is important to

note that, unlike the situation

in Orta, the plaintiffs have not asserted any property rights

____
in

their transitory

positions.

Rather, their

position is

that even if they have no property interest under Puerto Rico

law

in continued

employment after

the expiration

contracts, nevertheless defendants

may not

refuse to

appointments

renew

plaintiffs'
affiliation is

their transitory

political

affiliation

of their

constitutionally

unless

an appropriate job requirement.

because

of

political
Plaintiffs

-2-

are correct for the reasons we

explained in Cheveras Pacheco

________________
v. Rivera Gonzalez, 809 F.2d 125, 127-28 (1st Cir. 1987).
__________________
the

Otra
____

decision

Amendment claim
not

did

not

expressly

address

under the Elrod-Branti line of

_____ ______

any

however,

enjoys First
adverse

federal

law governs

Amendment protection

employment

Ruiz, 877 F.2d

____

action.

1114, 1119

whether

from a

First

cases, we do

agree with defendants' reading of that decision.

event,

As

an

In any
employee

politically based

See Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo___ __________________________

n. 7 (1st

Negron v. Castro-Davila, 865

_______________________

Cir. 1989);

F.2d 431, 436 (1st

De Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora,

____________________________

792 F.2d 1187,

Santiago_________
Cir. 1989);

1195 (1st Cir.

1986).
Defendants' attempt to distinguish Cheveras Pacheco
________________
on

the length

present

case;

meritless.

of

almost

As we

F.2d 947, 951 &

are

transitory employment--28

protected

six

years

stated in

from

Figueroa v. Aponte-Roque,
________________________

politically

number of

one-term

the protections
employee

also

motivated

non-renewals
served. . .

employee `particularly'

established in
is

864

"transitory employees

years they have

Although "a long-tenured `temporary'

the

Cheveras Pacheco--is
_________________

n. 7 (1st Cir. 1989),

regardless of the

enjoys

in

months in

Elrod and
_____

protected

from

Branti, a
______
political

discharge."
Appellees have
App.

P. 38.

moved for sanctions

We agree with

under Fed.

R.

appellees that this appeal is on

-3-

the

verge

of

settled law

frivolous.

explained in

Its

outcome

was controlled

the district court's

appellants have

failed to articulate

for appeal.

We

by

opinion, and

any reasonable

ground

thus will impose double costs under Fed.

R. App. P. 38.
The
affirmed.

order denying

Loc.

R.

27.1.

summary

judgment is

Appellants'

appellees' request for sanctions is denied.

awarded under Fed. R. App. P. 38.

motion

summarily
to

strike

Double costs are

-4-