San Gerónimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo-Vilá
650 F.3d 826
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Paseo Caribe project in San Juan; dispute over whether lands were public domain and improperly sold to private party.
- ARPE issued stay of permits after 2007 DOJ opinion reversing the 2002 opinion.
- ARPE hearing was non-adversarial and did not address San Gerónimo’s title.
- Puerto Rico courts held the 2007 DOJ opinion invalid as to title and required a proper hearing.
- Puerto Rico Supreme Court later held ARPE violated due process by using emergency process and lacking valid title determination authority.
- San Gerónimo filed 1983 action in federal court alleging due process, substantive due process, equal protection, and Article 1802 claim; district court dismissed; First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on federal claims but rejected absolute bar from Parratt-Hudson, recognizing due process violation and qualified immunity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parratt-Hudson applicability to this state-action deprivation | San Gerónimo argues Parratt-Hudson bars/delays predeprivation remedy. | Defendants contend emergency action fits postdeprivation theory. | Parratt-Hudson inapplicable; Zinermon governs due process analysis. |
| Whether emergency adjudicatory procedure violated due process | Emergency action deprived San Gerónimo of process protections. | Emergency procedure authorized under §2167 to address imminent danger. | Violation of due process; emergency process inappropriate given circumstances. |
| Whether San Gerónimo had a property interest and suffered deprivation | San Gerónimo had title to land underlying permits. | State relied on public-domain concerns and opinions; title unresolved. | Puerto Rico courts found San Gerónimo had valid title; ARPE unlawfully suspended permits. |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established at time of action. | Defendants lacked clearly established notice of illegality. | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Scope of remedies post-deprivation to cure due process defect | Post-deprivation remedies should suffice if predeprivation was lacking. | Remedies insufficient where state acted under broad discretionary procedures. | Post-deprivation remedies not sufficient; due process violated, yet qualified immunity remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (paraphrased as postdeprivation remedies may suffice in random, unauthorized deprivation cases)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (origin of Parratt-Hudson doctrine for random/unauthorized state conduct)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (established state procedure negating Parratt-Hudson applicability)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1990) (due process limits when state affords broad discretion with safeguards lacking)
- SFW Arecibo, Ltd. v. Rodríguez, 415 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2005) (parallels to Parratt-Hudson limitations in state action cases)
- PFZ Props., Inc. v. Rodríguez, 928 F.2d 28 (1st Cir. 1991) (challenge to predeprivation process when conduct violates state law)
- Chmielinski v. Massachusetts, 513 F.3d 309 (1st Cir. 2008) (cautions hard look at 'random and unauthorized' assessment; guides Parratt-Hudson analysis)