Saldivar v. Racine
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5623
1st Cir.2016Background
- In June 2011, Fall River police Officer Anthony Pridgen allegedly entered Elba Saldivar’s apartment in uniform, displayed his service handgun, assaulted, battered, and raped her, and threatened her and her children. Saldivar reported the assault; Pridgen later resigned and the DA declined prosecution.
- Saldivar obtained Pridgen’s disciplinary record (eleven actions spanning 2003–2011) showing various non-violent infractions and a five-day suspension after learning his firearm license had lapsed.
- Saldivar sued Pridgen, Police Chief Daniel Racine, and the City of Fall River asserting: assault/battery, Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against Racine and the City), and negligent hiring/training/supervision (against the City).
- Default judgment was entered against Pridgen for $600,000. Racine and the City moved to dismiss the remaining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed the § 1983 and state-law negligence claims against Racine and the City for failure to plead a plausible claim; the First Circuit affirmed, finding the complaint didn’t plausibly show supervisory or municipal deliberate indifference or foreseeable proximate cause under Massachusetts law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1983 supervisory liability against Chief Racine | Racine knew or should have known of Pridgen’s dangerousness from his disciplinary record and failure to keep gun license current, showing deliberate indifference to a grave risk | Disciplinary history did not show propensity for violence; no plausible notice of a grave risk and thus no supervisory liability | Dismissed — allegations insufficient to plausibly show Racine had actual or constructive knowledge of a grave risk or was deliberately indifferent |
| Monell liability against the City | City is liable because Racine, as final policymaker, made retention/supervision decisions and the City’s policies/customs were the moving force | Even assuming Racine is a policymaker, the complaint fails to plead deliberate indifference or a policy/custom that caused the constitutional violation | Dismissed — Monell claim implausible absent a plausible deliberate-indifference theory showing City caused the constitutional injury |
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision (Mass. Tort Claims Act) | City negligently trained/supervised/retained Pridgen given his disciplinary record, locker items, and lapsed gun license; those failures proximately caused the assault | Prior discipline lacked violent incidents; violent harm was not a foreseeable result of the alleged negligence; allegations are speculative | Dismissed — Massachusetts proximate-cause/foreseeability requirement not plausibly met; prior infractions did not put City on notice of risk of similar violent misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability for policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (municipal deliberate indifference standard for policymaker acts)
- Camilo-Robles v. Hoyos, 151 F.3d 1 (First Circuit on supervisor constructive knowledge and remedies)
- Jupin v. Kask, 849 N.E.2d 829 (Mass. 2006) (Massachusetts proximate-cause/foreseeability for negligent supervision claims)