Nunez-Colon v. Toledo-Davila
648 F.3d 15
1st Cir.2011Background
- Núñez Colón, a Puerto Rico police officer, misappropriated $600 during a home search and later returned it with a receipt.
- He was suspended without pay and faced administrative proceedings culminating in termination for violating police regulations.
- Núñez challenged the termination via state administrative channels (CIPA) and then pursued federal §1983 claims.
- District court dismissed several claims based on collateral estoppel and noted no viable relief against Toledo in official capacity.
- On appeal, Núñez argued collateral estoppel should not bar certain claims, testifying issues should be admitted, and due process was violated by a 14-day delay before the post-suspension hearing.
- The First Circuit affirmed, holding collateral estoppel applicable, public policy exception inapplicable, and the fourteen-day delay did not violate due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| collateral estoppel and public policy exception | Núñez contends public policy exception allows re-litigation. | Toledo argues collateral estoppel bars re-litigation; public policy exception inapplicable. | Public policy exception inapplicable; collateral estoppel bars claims. |
| Exclusion of testimony at trial | Núñez argues excluded testimony would prove weakness of allegations. | Testimony related to misappropriation was barred by collateral estoppel. | No abuse; testimony related to misappropriation properly excluded. |
| Due process timing of post-suspension hearing | Fourteen-day delay violated due process after acquittal. | Delay was permissible and not unconstitutional under Gilbert v. Homar guidance. | Delay not constitutionally violative; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2000) (state law for collateral estoppel applying to federal court judgments)
- Barreto-Rosa v. Varona-Mendaz, 470 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (collateral estoppel boundaries and public policy considerations)
- Medina v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 737 F.2d 140 (1st Cir. 1984) (public policy exception to collateral estoppel)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court, 1985) (no due-process violation from mere delay without showing prejudice)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 92 (Supreme Court, 1997) (due process factors balancing private interests, risk of error, government interests)
- Mallen v. FDIC, 486 U.S. 230 (Supreme Court, 1988) (due process considerations and timing)