Wilber v. Curtis
872 F.3d 15
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Wilber owns property subject to an NStar utility easement; NStar contracted VCS to clear vegetation on the easement.
- Wilber repeatedly protested VCS work, placed caution tape across the easement, and refused officers’ repeated orders to leave the marked work area.
- Barnstable Officers Curtis and Kinsella (and later Officer Rogers, who booked Wilber) arrested Wilber; state charged him with disorderly conduct, later dismissed.
- Wilber sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and multiple Massachusetts tort/statutory claims (MCRA, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress).
- The Magistrate Judge granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; the First Circuit reviews de novo and affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands some state claims to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest violated § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) | Wilber: officers lacked probable cause to arrest for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct | Officers: probable cause existed for disturbing the peace or other state offenses; alternatively qualified immunity protects them | Affirmed for defendants on qualified immunity grounds — arrest was at least arguable under state law (interfering with officer duties) |
| Qualified immunity standard application | Wilber: conduct was protected speech / not clearly unlawful | Defs: even if mistake, reasonable officers could conclude arrest lawful; state law unclear so immunity applies | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that arrest was unlawful |
| State-law pendent claims (MCRA, IIED) | Wilber: genuine disputes of fact preclude summary judgment | Defs: no triable facts showing liability under MCRA or IIED | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants on MCRA and IIED claims |
| State torts (false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution) | Wilber: disputes over probable cause and officers’ intent create triable issues | Defs: probable cause and other defenses; Rogers had minimal involvement | Vacated summary judgment and remanded to state court for: false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Kinsella and Curtis; false imprisonment against Rogers; affirmed for Rogers on malicious prosecution and false arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Soto v. Flores, 103 F.3d 1056 (1st Cir.) (elements for § 1983 claim)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (U.S. 2012) (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
- Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (arguable probable cause and qualified immunity in warrantless arrests)
- Cortés-Reyes v. Salas-Quintana, 608 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.) (qualified immunity where state law uncertain)
- Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims dismissed)
- Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1988) (pendent jurisdiction factors favor dismissal when federal claims eliminated)