Soto-Torres v. Fraticelli
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17238
1st Cir.2011Background
- Soto-Torres sues FBI SAC Luis Fraticelli in his individual capacity under a Bivens theory for alleged unlawful detention and excessive force during the Sept. 23, 2005, Ojeda Rios operation in Hormigueros, Puerto Rico; Fraticelli was in charge but not personally present at the detention.
- The operation targeted fugitive Ojeda Rios; warrants existed for Ojeda, and surveillance began Sept. 22–23, 2005; Soto-Torres’s parents’ property was nearby but not subject to a search warrant.
- Soto-Torres alleges agents assaulted him, detained him for about four hours in handcuffs, pointed firearms, and failed to explain the basis of detention before release around 8:00 p.m.; he alleges injury and need for treatment.
- The complaint named Fraticelli and ten unnamed agents; only the Bivens claim against Fraticelli remains; the second amended complaint was filed after Iqbal; the district court later granted in part and denied in part.
- The district court denied qualified immunity; on interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit reverses, holding the complaint fails under Iqbal to plead Fraticelli’s personal involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint plead plausible personal liability against Fraticelli under Iqbal? | Soto-Torres alleges Fraticelli was in charge and participated or knew and failed to act. | Allegations are too conclusory; mere status as officer in charge is insufficient. | No; insufficient under Iqbal; entry of judgment for Fraticelli. |
| Can supervisory liability survive with only 'officer in charge' and 'knew/failed to act' allegations? | Supervisors may be liable for subordinates’ constitutional violations. | Requires an affirmative link showing the supervisor caused the violation. | Not satisfied; supervisory liability rejected. |
| Are the Iqbal two-prong pleading requirements satisfied? | Allegations show Fraticelli directed or knew of the violations. | No concrete facts showing direction, knowledge, or causation. | Not plausible; fails to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (two-prong pleading standard; no bare conclusions allowed)
- Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263 (1st Cir. 2009) (supervisory liability requires affirmative link; conclusory claims insufficient)
- Pineda v. Toomey, 533 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2008) (pre-Iqbal standard; 'affirmative link' requirement in supervisory liability)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading requires plausible, not merely conceivable, claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (S. Ct. 2009) (two-step approach to qualified immunity; 'clearly established' inquiry)
- Iqbal, Ashcroft v., 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (clear articulation of pleading standard; cited with Iqbal decision)