Luisa A. De Abadia v. Hon. Luis Izquierdo Mora

ABADIA, al., et Luisa A. DE

Plaintiffs, Appellees, MORA, al., IZQUIERDO et

Hon. Luis

Defendants, Appellants.

Nos. 85-1520. Appeals,

United States Court

First Circuit.

Argued Sept. 1985. 27, 1986. May

Decided Rehearing En

Rehearing and Banc

Denied June

Marcos A. Ramirez Lavandera with A. Ramirez and Ramirez & whom Marcos brief, Ramirez, P.R., Rey, were on Hato defendants, appellants. with whom Law

Jose E. Fernandez-Sein Fernandez-Sein, of Nachman & Offices P.R., brief, Santurce, plaintiffs, was on appellees. CAMPBELL, Judge, and

Before Chief TORRUELLA, Circuit ALDRICH Judges. ALDRICH,

BAILEY Senior Circuit not be entitled to quali- a claim of Judge. immunity. fied Generally, immunity the doctrine only applicable is to actions for This is our saga second installment in a damages and employed cannot be in suits politics of Puerto following gu- Rican seeking declaratory injunctive or relief. bernatorial election of November 1984. Foster, Mitchum v. 407 U.S. 225 [92 See Jimenez-Fuentes v. Torres Gaztam- S.Ct. 705], Thus, L.Ed.2d bide, (1st Cir.1985)(since 779 F.2d 765 with- immunity issue of is not as clear cut as awaited). drawn and decision en banc now argue defendants in their motion to Abadía, Plaintiff Luisa de member stay.” party (PNP) ousted in that election and former Executive Director of the Quality thought Our the court was here Program Control Department confusing making early of an ruling as Health, monetary damages seeks and in- immunity right with the to an immediate junctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § appeal, where damages both injunc- and an against Izquierdo Mora, Luis A. the recent- involved, tion were confirmed its la- ly appointed Secretary Department ter, oral, ruling denying the motion for Health, Irizarry, Guillermo the Adminis- summary judgment. parties When the dis- Department, trator and Sonia I. Co- motion, cussed the merits of that and the Robles, Department’s lon Personnel Di- it, court deny added, stated it would it “It alleges rector. She that defendants violat- appealable, is not anyway.” following The rights ed her they civil when demoted her then occurred. to a “career” as a nutritionist with- Mr. appealable Ramirez: It is if it de- Department. in the Specifically, she claims qualified immunity, nies that’s one of the her demotion due was to her affil- cases we cited on the motion. iation, in violation of the strictures of El- The I denying Court: am not qualified Burns, rod v. 427 U.S. 96 S.Ct. immunity, denying your I am motion for (1976), 49 L.Ed.2d 547 and Branti v. Fink- summary judgment, two things. different el, 445 U.S. 100 S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d Mr. qualified Ramirez: It includes im- Defendants moved for summa- munity. ry judgment, arguing that qualified it, The Court: You raised but in an which, officials, as they injunction I am not so sure that entitled, were see Fitzgerald, Harlow v. immunity applies not, my as said in . 800,102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 396 denying your request order stay. (1982), precluded recovery damages Mr. Okay Ramirez: so Your Honor is them, against whatever the outcome of the denying then the— injunctive claim. The district court denied The Court: I denying your am motion motion, appeal. and defendants summary for judgment, I believe that Strictly, defendants filed two motions. controversy there is a of fact that cannot disposed court first of their motion to through summary judgment. resolved delay discovery until the motion for sum- This would points: seem to raise two mary judgment upon. deny- was acted deny whether it was correct to the motion this, ing order, by written the court said summary judgment, for and whether an although might agree that officials incorrect denial appealable.1 would be might qualified immunity be entitled to a damages case, claims for proper in a We consider first whether denial of “this action is seeking ... not an action summary judgment on a claim of damages, injunc- but is also an action for immunity which the Court held in Mitchell — U.S.-, tive relief which the Forsyth, defendants Conceivably question equitable there is a further wheth- defense to relief. That is the cause misspoke para- er the court itself in the second problem. our is, course, graph. Qualified immunity no (1985), an immedi- principal L.Ed.2d 411 warranted defend- [defendants remain] position. in an appeal a “final decision” action ers of the state’s They ate will permit simply damages, major responsibility would not bear for the out- litigation if there were also a claim appeal among immediate come of will be principal injunctive relief. This witnesses at trial. Whether ante, Mitchell, open foot- or not are immune damages left Mitchell, against circuits had them in their capaci- note 5. Before two individual Fourth, ties, question. litigation on this Bev- will demand divided their time (4th Gilbertson, present 724 F.2d 1083 Cir. and attention. A er declaration of 1984) (2-1), appealability; immunity damages denied Tubbes- from claims cannot Arnold, (8th Cir.1984), ing v. avoid the diversion of their attention have found no other cases from litigation held contra. We official duties which the Mitchell, since and it is a matter of first will occasion.

impression in circuit. In this Krohn v. (1st States, Cir.1984), 742 F.2d 24

United immuni- we held that denial of circumstances, these but, appealable, ty immediately is as in immunity whether a denial of the claims Mitchell, ante, had before us a we appealable appear is would to have little us, damages. claim for It seems to how- upon willingness respon effect ever, that the official’s concerns are the office.[2] persons in public to serve sible is also a claim for an same when there respect Circuit, With due to the Fourth injunction and we conclude that the rule reasoning. ap- we do not follow its Its should extend to such cases. that, official, proach public assumes Mitchell, qualified in As the Court said capacity the threat of suit his individual immunity immunity is more than an from is no worse than the threat of suit as money damages; it immunity is “an state, representative of the and that from effectively is lost if a case suit ... [which] defending burdens of are no more onerous erroneously permitted go is to trial.” for the former Although than the latter. original). (emphasis Id. at 2816 This is recognize public obligation we official’s so, said, because, the Court brought against to defend a suit him in his “consequences” with which we were emotional, public capacity, perhaps

concerned in are not limited to Harlow physical, great. responsibility is not as liability money damages; they also being person- fear of sued and held “[T]he general subjecting costs of include “the damages cry ally liable for is a far from a officials to the risks trial —distraction relief, injunctive for reinstatement or suit duties, inhi- of officials from their official public regularly which officials face in the action, discretionary bition of and deter- Bever, performing their course of duties.” people government rence of able from ante, (Hall, J., 724 F.2d at 1091-92 n. Harlow, (quoting service.” Id. at 2815 dissenting). may The threat well include ante, 2737). at 102 S.Ct. at damages. punitive, as well as actual See Green, 14, 22, argues Plaintiff that because defendants Carlson v. 1468, 1473-74, proceed any must to trial in event on the S.Ct. 64 L.Ed.2d 15 claim, purpose spent if on the injunctive there is little Even the actual time case allowing damages. away ordinary responsibilities from his them to avoid trial ante, Bever, damages quote Plaintiff would 724 F.2d were the same whether the claim out, energy may in or the official’s be to the effect immunity suggested Id. at 1087. This is a red 2. The Fourth Circuit that the interest claims.” overriding prompt against allowing herring, totally irrelevant to the con- results also militates Mitchell, cern, appeals: might expressed in Harlow and for the these have ob- "[Defendants] trial, right merely judgment and not claims official’s to avoid tained a favorable individually expeditious immuni- resolution of his them sooner a trial on obtain an ty litigation by appellate defense. the merits than of their public merely pressing performance diverted from issues of the office.” Not all of however, personal apprehension these, At involved. are disputes upon factual least, damages sued for the official which a determination of this motion for retain, may have his own at his summary judgment counsel depends. ante, expense. Tubbesing, own 742 F.2d at To start with Nos. litigious age 404 n. these all of it clear makes that these classifications do legitimate, might easily concerns not, se, per excuse demotions.3 In taking public deter office. individuals Branti, pointed Court out that labels Finally, approach the Fourth Circuit’s such as “policymaking” “confidential” might plaintiffs spurious to include invite controls; rather, what are not the relevant injunctive interlocutory ap- claims avoid inquiry “party whether affiliation is an peal question, and thus appropriate requirement for the effective force to face the defendant the tribulations performance office.” 445 of a he properly trial from which 518, 1287, at 1295, U.S. 507 100 S.Ct. 63 immune. Thus, 574. L.Ed.2d 1 issue Nos. and 3 into, sum, really merge and are not agree separate In with the we dissent from, Bever, time, respects. issue No. 4. At same Tubbesing and with all issue No. 2 not interlocutory appeal We hold that lies does have to an be decided in de summary from favor if they the district court’s denial of fendants’ can succeed on No. judgment qualified immunity Furthermore, on of a claim respect plain- 4. damages liability, peti- from though even tiff’s for damages, claim defendants need injunctive pending. tion for relief is also not win merits of issue No. 4 if they are entitled defense im- Perhaps because its erroneous views munity. If the defendants make a suffi- ruling on of an availability advance on showing good faith, viz., cient of objective qualified immunity, the district did court that at time of the demotion the law not discuss whether defendants made a had “clearly was not established” their Instead, showing immunity. sufficient action, they are immune suit. Har- summary judgment it denied on the basis low, ante, 818, 457 U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at fact,” of “clear issues of but made little 2738. showing beyond as extent refer- to their “controversy ence to the whether Mrs. question The first is what meant Abadía was or not a em- was confidential “clearly established.” consider it We to be ployee, [tjhat’s duties what her were ... something requiring less than why judg- summary cannot decide principle official to show that the of law did if Obviously ment.” there was a determin- exist, left; or not there would be little ing question regarding of fact defendant’s there be few on which would cases officials defense, immunity denial rarely legislatures Only could succeed. do motion was correct. See Fernandez v. change princi- introduce or whole courts Leonard, 1209, (1st 2 note often, ples. process change More Cir.1986). sharpening lines in involves the law’s areas, grey absent which there could rea- shortage There is a serious record. sonably be excusable mistakes. The case order, proposed pretrial parties their interpretation. supports this 1) law broad disputed listed four matters: whether Harlow, ante, 815-19, “confidential”; 2) See 457 U.S. 102 plaintiff’s position was 2736-39; Navarette, 5.Ct. at Procunier v. whether she terminated for was 855, 859-61, reasons; 3) 560-65, position “poli- her 434 98 whether was U.S. S.Ct. 4) (1978); Strickland, cy 24 making”; “political loy- whether 55 L.Ed.2d v. Wood 315-22, alty appropriate requirement is an for the 420 S.Ct. 997- U.S. respect apparent Personnel See P.R.Laws Ann. 3. With to issue No. it is not Puerto Rico Law. thought (1978 Supp.1984). how it could be other & tit. § employee” than a "confidential as defined (1975); appear initially type not to be the Scheuer v. 43 L.Ed.2d 232, 240-48, Rhodes, 94 S.Ct. critical actions for which wide discretion is 1688-92, appropriate, higher levels, 40 L.Ed.2d at least at the cases, heavy laid of these Court they imple- each essential to the effective are faith, good now emphasis on the officials’ important government poli- mentation of faith,4 good objective defined Harlow Elrod, ante, 367, 372, cies. 427 U.S. at See by which their actions are as the criterion 2686-87, 96 S.Ct. at judged. basis, becomes, question On requires decision public interest [T]he whether defendants were in fact correct in action____ Public officials ... who believing party appro- affiliation to they when are fail to make decisions plaintiff’s position, priate requirement for implement act to needed or who do not whether, objectively, they but viewed were made do not when decisions believing. If reasonable so this were an faithfully perform the duties of fully and faith, subjective good might issue of there Implicit in the idea that their offices. fact; always be a it is difficult immunity ... is a officials have some summary judg- to think there could ever be recognition they may err. The con- However, objective ment. in the case of goes cept of assumes this and faith, good that a reasonable man in de- to risk to assume that it is better fendants’ could have believed his than not to decide or act at some error warranted, Malley Briggs, conduct to be Scheuer, ante, 416 U.S. at all. — -, 1092, 1096, 106 S.Ct. at 1689. (1986), may purely legal a L.Ed.2d be good standard is the Court’s faith 9, question, at 2816-17 n. Mitchell so that need for dis- attempt to accommodate this may possible appellate for an court be to uncertainty cretionary action in areas of rule that a defendant was reasonable as a protection rights. of individual with event, purpose matter of law. no expected predict “The official cannot be by remanding to the would be served dis- law, the future course of constitutional but this is such a trict court. We believe case. liability if he he will not be shielded We start with the fact Elrod and disregard of ... acts ‘with such change in marked a substantial Branti rights that his action cannot established “party appro- an law. That affiliation be being in reasonably be characterized as ” much priate job requirement” is easier ante, Procunier, good 434 U.S. at faith.’ say apply than to to the wide number 860, Wood, ante, (quoting 98 S.Ct. at any to occur in factual situations bound 1001) (citations 420 U.S. at 95 S.Ct. at large government employing a number of omitted). apply These are concerns that present In the state of the individuals. just forcefully as to refinements or clarifi- law, may the ultimate resolu- whatever existing cations of doctrine as radical merits—an issue not before tion on the changes of direction. The cases are also case, may frequently particular us—of a good vary that the limits of faith clear Certainly at easy in advance. not be scope responsibilities “the of discretion and political as well as top there must be all circumstances as of the office and guidelines the conduct of the other action.” they appeared at the time of the Department of Health. Commonwealth’s Scheuer, ante, 416 at 94 S.Ct. at U.S. Plaintiff, governmental in accordance with Where, case, the official’s her own official regulations, had executed broad, responsibilities he must be af- Director of the job description as Executive range of correspondingly a broad forded re- Plaintiff’s own Department of Health. employment decisions discretion. While subjective good rejection of the pronounce- icance lies in its 4. Harlow is recent the most immunity. prong The doctrine has 457 U.S. at ment on faith of the doctrine. cases, all of these which roots that antedate at 2737-38. 102 S.Ct. signif- simply developed its contours. Harlow’s sponsibilities appear directly to mesh (1st there- Cir.1977); 593 n. 4 Mummau compare Branti, in.5 With these Ranck, F.Supp. 402, (E.D. 100 S.Ct. at 1294-95. Pa.1982), (3d affd, 687 F.2d Cir. 1982). Thus, is ... clear that Governor a if [I]t per officeholder may appropriately State believe that the forms fewer or important less func official duties of various assistants who usually tions than position, attend his help him speeches, explain write his he exempt still be prohi from the press, views to the or communicate with against political bition terminations if legislature performed cannot be ef- position his inherently encompasses fectively persons unless those share his tasks that political render his affil beliefs and commitments. iation an appropriate prerequisite for performance. effective In this court’s Plaintiffs affidavit that her employ- true reiteration of the mundane, formulation, only, ment was non constat that emphasized we prepared she had quite job functions of the different de- ante, involved, scription, office not the asserted basis of her officeholder: performance,6 actual might “The test is create an issue whether the held ultimately merits, of fact on authorizes, but to individual either di permit proffer of an oral contradiction of rectly indirectly, meaningful input signed description her own to create an government into making decision on destroying issue of fact quali- defendants’ issues where princi there is room for fied would emasculate the entire pled disagreement goals or their principle. No official would be free of suit. implementation.” Painter, Nekolny v. 1164,1170 (7th Cir.1981), cert. We would add that an official denied, should have at least a right to 72 L.Ed.2d 139 The unarticu regard an office as embracing the charac purpose lated approach behind this If, fact, teristics normal to its nature. first, seems to be two-fold: to resolve the preceding governor withheld the duties entirely issue proceeding, one plaintiff’s embraced description this thereby relieving the courts of the bur should not foreclose his successor from having den of to reexamine a certain naming replacement higher with the position every time a new administra duties. As the court said in Meeks v. changes tion Grimes, responsibilities the mix of (7th 779 F.2d 419 n. 1 Cir. upon officeholder; 1985), and, bestowed the second, provide certainty to liti focus is on the powers” “inherent [The] gants. office, of the not any what individual actually officeholder does. City Tomczak v. Chicago, 765 F.2d (7th Cir.1985). require Elrod and 640-41 Branti Therefore examination powers barring of the some given inherent in a radical transformation of- that fice, as opposed goes to the to the per- functions core of the nature of the particular formed occupant position, the district court need not con- that Marshall, office. Ness v. cern past present itself with what (3d Cir.1981); F.2d de administrations have done with the of- Alfaro Quevedo Schuck, v. De Jesus 556 F.2d fice. See, e.g., them; process for the consideration of the Aids, Secretary, Secretary, Legislature "2. Advise the the Governor or the Governors’ Legislators give and up in the establishment follow to determine the action philosophy, public policy, goals objectives taken." related to the health services. you perform “7. Recommend drafts bills and bills di- 6. "Detail the work the in order of implement, derogate tasks, pro- rected to importance amend or starting of the different allowing development visions for the important____” the most assigned Program; functions discuss

Indeed, (See point, very the the she herself had described it to be. to labor n. 5, ante.) dispute is a reasonable fact that there that, standpoint quali means sum, presently we are concerned not immunity, clearly law not es fied with the correctness of defendants’ deter- plaintiff’s favor. In Tubbesing tablished mination, hand, on the one nor subjec- their discharge action v. Arnold a section other, tive state mind on the but of the upon meaning “person of a depended “objective of their reasonableness” con- policy granting defend nel manual.” Farrell, Floyd duct. See 4 & said, qualified immunity the court ants (1st Cir.1985). n. 1 We F.2d at incorrectness of clearly their conduct was disputed Insofar as there is a issue presci- established. Harlow demands Manual, concerning it involves the ence, objective good faith. In some but differing interpretations Tubbesing non, application, cases vel of Elrod- dispute Board. There is no and the clear; others it will be dispute the manual was in effect and no sufficiently fraught with uncertainty that about the contents of Manual. an official could not be faulted failing for only question interpretation, involves its apprehend. and this is a court. sympathy We are not without for district precluding summary judg- than Rather judges guidance would like full who in this ment, application of the fact that the area, difficult but we must hesitate to Policy is dis- Manual [to directors] providing write a textbook resolution of all puted merely emphasizes that the law at questions. merely hold, future For now we complained the time of the conduct finding appellants to be at least reasonable clearly was not established. Even con- believing the law was not estab sidering light in the the evidence most lished, are entitled to Tubbesing, giving favorable to her immunity from suit. We therefore vacate inferences, of all reasonable benefit grant and remand with directions to sum genu- we cannot conclude that there is a mary judgment personal on the issue of concerning ine issue of fact whether liability and to dismiss the counts as to

Tubbesing “clearly had a established” personal damages.* defendants’ right employment. to continued we consider as a matter of So viewed CAMPBELL, Judge H. Chief LEVIN law, believe, reasonably defendants could (concurring). although they may ultimately on the merits join Judge opinion Aldrich’s fully mistaken, prove that the the court. Quality Executive Director of the Control Judge Torruella’s extensive Because Program was one that allowed substantial dissent, reflecting his view that there is a im- responsibility development for the and underlying issue of fact the claim of triable plementation high policy level as de- immunity, may I think it qualified be useful ante, job description, in n. 3 re- tailed (the defendants) movants to recall what quiring political compatible a outlook required to establish in order to ob- were Secretary’s; in that it was a summary judgment, tain and to restate position political for which affiliation was respective parties present- in fact what the appropriate requirement. Particularly an ed. mouth, plaintiff’s it should not lie in faith, moving parties summary judg- good that As issue of defendants’ ment, being had the burden of show- they regard not what defendants could * raised, having dissenting plaintiffs would call the district reference to been Our brother’s damages separate count for under the Common- State School & court’s attention to Pennhurst statute, pendent jurisdiction Halderman, wealth for which Hospital asserted, presently is to not before us. a matter 79 L.Ed.2d 67. S.Ct. However, opinion, the matter the writer of ing dispute showing of a the absence factual over there was no material issue of relative to their defense of material issues disputed fact that an preclude would award Hence, immunity. moving pa- summary judgment for defendants on pers the ab- required were substantiate the limited immuni- disputed sence of issue of fact a material (1) ty, assuming because even that whether, the time over at demoted predecessors of her averments and the for- plaintiff, reasonably defendants could have Secretary mer of Health be would relevant believed law was not estab- that the inquiry, person (as to a merits a reasonable against lished actions. their Judge opinion Aldrich’s the court motion, support their defendants shows) could have disregarded these mat- copy submitted a certified of so-called clas- assessing pow- ters in what the “inherent signed questionnaire by plaintiff sification were; (2) her ers” of office and Secretary They and the of Health. assert- implicitly job description concedes that the genuine ed that there no issue mate- was submitted defendants with their motion rial and plaintiffs fact that functions office, reflects official duties of her duties listed in were those that document. contending though aas matter lawof opposition an mo- Plaintiff filed to the do party such duties not make affiliation an dispute tion. She did not the certified appropriate prerequisite job. for the presented by correct- document defendants Whether, law, as a matter of these duties per- ly portrayed job description the official party do or not make ap- do affiliation an taining position, she ar- plaintiffs but gued strenuously propriate prerequisite job, that it did or “not state for the seems to party appropri- show that affiliation is an me a question. close and difficult requirement perform- ate for the effective Although the law seems clear either end ance of position.” She also cited to a th[e] spectrum, enough the Elrod-Branti number of other documents that had al- precedent dealing upper-level with various record, ready part a been made of the governmental positions in the middle of the particular to affidavits from two spectrum yet emerged has enable one to plaintiffs predecessors-in-office and classify easily position. such a See Ness v. Secretary averring former of Health that Marshall, (3d Cir.1981) F.2d office, (1) plaintiffs predecessors while (“Guidance Supreme from the Court as to public policy imple- did not formulate party ‘appropriate’ when affiliation be politics any given political par- ment the is limited to the facts of the Branti case (2) ty; politics was not a factor examples few and to a offered Justice functions; discharge (3) they of their opinion.”). Stevens his Branti were not political members same Subtle distinctions must drawn in deter- party then-Secretary as the of Health. mining position occupies whether a Plaintiff referred further to the affidavits this troublesome middle tier falls within Izquierdo-Mora Iri- filed defendants exception the Elrod-Branti to the first zarry, argued that neither these one of prohibition amendment fir- “any affidavits contained statement poli- ings.1 post- effect that de Not is there dearth of Abadia’s cy making position or that affiliation area, authority First Circuit in this appropriate requirement for the [was] assessing from other but cases circuits performance position.” effective political discharge brought claims merits of governmental employees by upper-level Notwithstanding foregoing opposi- tion, job I in to be generally believe that defendants have found the such succeeded See, others, Cohalan, authority speak policy- e.g., F.Supp. to name of 1. Ecker v. 542 makers, (E.D.N.Y.1982) (Weinstein, CJ.) ("Among public perception, pro- influence on 901 respon- job along spectrum grams, and a contact with elected officials indicia that locate partisan politics policymaker between and clerk relative siveness to and lead- are: ers.”). pay, competence, power control technical to good permissible agree affiliation was a con- conscience this that court has appellate jurisdiction sideration.2 either over this con- troversy, appellants or that have a valid reasons, I For these think defendants immunity, respectfully claim to I dissent. reasonably have could believed was not established federal law Appealability I. the Puerto

against their actions. While had indeed issued their own Rican courts presented by The issues the appealability mainly opinions, based on Common- question are twofold. The first is raised laws, and the matter wealth’s Constitution reason of the nature the action taken and, here, federal I us turns on law before court, by the district which was a denial of considerably my less clear than is col- am summary judgment ground a motion Torruella, how that law league, Judge genuine dispute that a existed over a mate- like this. Our own court is affects offices rial issue of fact. For reasons set forth holding hearing respect en an banc below, fully more I do not believe the dis- employment two recent demotion/dis- “conclusive,” trict court’s decision was a charge simply cases because of our own hence, appealable Moreover, and decision. how the United States Su- concern over I majority, contrary believe that the ap- preme decisions are meant to be Court governing judgment, rules summary draws plied. only Since the before us is factual inferences in favor of the moving person a reasonable would have what party, rather than to the benefit of the law, known as to the state of the and not party opposing the motion. I case, is in I the actual answer this what majority improperly disregards believe the agree Judge Aldrich that defendants with below, dispute the factual in usurpa- damages by immune from virtue should be tion of the functions of the trial court and immunity, their official whatev- legal jury, decides both merits that were plaintiff’s er the eventual outcome of claim below, not addressed and resolves contest- pay. back for restoration of her that, ed factual matters under the rules emphasize, Judge I what Aldrich has And governing summary judgment, should be said, issue is not wheth- finder, by the left to decision fact and not subjectively were rea- er these defendants appellate tribunal. that, opinion; enough it is sonable their record, precludes appellate The second issue that opinion their could be found objectively jurisdiction reasonable. is the nature the issues below; namely, joint raised in the court TORRUELLA, (dissent- Judge Circuit monetary damages equitable for claim ing). that, relief. The decides while relief, equitable trial will continue as to an appeal presents separate issues: This two interlocutory appeal can be allowed on (1) jurisdiction whether this court has qualified immunity damages. as to For does, (2) appeal, if it entertain this below, fully I reasons more set forth do not appellants are entitled to whether willingness majority’s depart immunity from suit. Because share the See, curiam) (party appropriate e.g., City Chicago, was an v. affiliation Tomczak (7th Cir.) appropri (party position an prerequisite affiliation was Assistant District for position Deputy connection, prerequisite for of First significant ate Attorney). In this Department of Water for Commissioner exception Supreme with the Court’s — denied, U.S.-, Chicago), City cert. Brand, decisions in Elrod and cases (1985); Shakman L.Ed.2d 289 106 S.Ct. argument support which that, cites in of her Organization County, Cook v. Democratic demotion, federal law at the time of her curiam) (7th Cir.) (per (party F.2d "clearly was established” the defendants' appropriate prerequisite affiliation right her are two decisions of the to demote Superintendent Employment Court, only Supreme Rico one of which Puerto denied, District), Chicago Park cert. expressly purports on a construction to be based (1983); 78 L.Ed.2d 258 Mum Rico law. of federal as well as of Puerto Ranck, (3d 1982) (per 687 F.2d 9 Cir. mau 1196 strong judicial policy dialogue

from the in- place took between the district terlocutory appeals. Accordingly, judge appellant/defendant’s counsel: by the nature of the action taken the dis- Tr. 7 THE COURT: I think that there court, I trict believe the nature of the issue are clear issues of fact here which presented precludes appellate jurisdic- resolved, also by must be whether tion. by Jury. Court or

It is not completely without contro- versy whether Mrs. Abadía was or was A. The nature the action taken not a employee, confidential what her district court duties were. being pedantic, At the risk of I should by restating general commence rule of Tr. 8 RAMIREZ: ... jurisdiction, appellate federal one which at point The is what are the duties of times seems honored more breach than position, and that is clear from the in compliance, limiting “jurisdiction presented documents that we sup- appeals final decisions of the dis- [to] port motion, of our simply and that trict pro- courts.” 28 U.S.C. 1291. This § cannot be controverted. congressional poli- vision “a firm manifests cy against interlocutory ‘piecemeal’ ap-

peals,” States, Abney v. 431 United U.S. Tr. 9 THE COURT: She has contro- 651, 656, 2034, 2038, 97 S.Ct. 52 L.Ed.2d them, it, verted as I understand that’s (1977), 651 and “is the dominant rule in why I cannot summary judg- decide appellate practice.” Flanagan federal v. ment. States, 259,104 United 465 U.S. S.Ct. (1984). 79 L.Ed.2d 288 It follows Tr. 11 THE denying COURT: I am not rule, interlocutory from this that for an qualified immunity, denying your I am appealable, decision to be the district court summary motion judgment, two ruling must “conclusively render a which things. different disputed question.” determine[s] — -, Forsyth, Mitchell v. 2806, 2816, (1985); S.Ct. L.Ed.2d THE denying your COURT: I am mo- Coopers Lybrand Livesay, & 437 U.S. summary tion for judgment, I believe 463, 468, 2454, 2457-2458, 98 S.Ct. controversy that there is a of fact that (1978). Thus, L.Ed.2d 351 ap- through summary be resolved pealed from must involve a classical Rule judgment. law, 56 issue in which there are no Transcript hearing. of June questions material of fact which are dis- incorrect, If the district court was puted. Forsyth, supra. Mitchell v. To pend- there were no material issues of fact obvious, belabor it follows that summa- ing, proper appeal outcome on would be ry judgment granted cannot be where for this court to remand with instructions questions there are material of fact dis- that the trial court decide the issues of law pute. Fitzger- the first instance. Harlow v. ground appellate The first lack our ald, 800, 819-820, 102 S.Ct. jurisdiction that, by in this case is virtue of (1982); 73 L.Ed.2d 396 see also the nature of the action taken trial Dept, Witters v. Wash. Services For — court, it failed to Blind, U.S.-,---n. make a “conclusive” de- 3,- termination. The district court did not rule n. 751 n. 753 n. merits of the despite recogni- L.Ed.2d 846 Yet question but rather decided that it could by majority tion that “the district court not so rule because there were contested did not the merits of discuss [the questions following material immunity] 1190) (opinion p. issue” fact. shortage typewriter. is a serious Appellee’s signature appears “[t]here (id.) record,” proceeds on the page multi-paged it nevertheless last of the doc- ument. appellate step deciding Contrary majority’s the unusual to the take conclu- sion, upon by explanation the there is no issues not ruled district court or evidence document, Witters, authorship as to of this supra. apart in the first instance. As above, plaintiff’s signature the fact that precept ap- it is a fundamental noted pears questions at the end and that prior on the appellate procedure appellate appear form review, employee be directed to an conclusively the district court must filling it in. Since, the decide issue below. Id. as re- by colloquy, vealed the above-cited the dis- If, concludes, as the majority authorship trict court did decide the im- not fact, is a material basic rules of summary below, munity majority merits has act- judgment require that defendant-movant appellate jurisdiction ed no where exists. affirmatively plead (and establish) author- appellate adjudication Such de novo of the ship in dispute. as not Cape See Mack v. merits, view, my nothing amounts to less Board, Elizabeth School usurpation than our of the trial court’s (1st Cir.1977). below, Defendant-movant opinion, role. With this we have now be- however, pleading, has made no such much come a court of first instance. And with showing. Nevertheless, less a according to result, simply such a cannot concur. majority, though authorship even was affirmatively alleged, the is majority’s The error is further com- inference apparently supposed speak for itself. view, pounded, my by disregard its (as dispute the material factual below rec- problem majority’s with the adoption ognized by denying the district court in First, of the above inference is twofold. summary judgment). To understand the by the inference foregone is no means a dispute, why nature of this factual conclusion. “per- From the nature of the correctly regarded district court such dis- used, language sonnelese” it is entirely merits, pute precluding ruling a it possible job description that the pre- necessary to examine the motion for office, pared by personnel plain- summary judgment itself. signature being formality. tiff’s a mere Second, drawn, if inferences are to be Appellant/defendants’ motion for sum- governing summary judgment rules mary judgment grounds claimed two clear. Inferences are to be drawn (1) appellee/plaintiff’s dismissal:1 that her movant, party op- and in favor policymaking required duties and functions posing the motion. Fitzger- See Harlow v. political loyalty appropriate require- as an ald, supra 457 U.S. at 816 n. performance work; (2) ment for of her at 2737 n. 26 employee that she was a confidential sub- ject to removal at will under the laws Thus, plaintiff’s authorship only is not a unaccompa- Puerto Rico. The motion was premise, requires critical factual but it affidavits, by any by nied but rather majority opinion. critical inference certification from the sub-director of the means, effect, This the face of personnel attesting evidence, Commonwealth’s office ambiguous has not validity job description, inferences, to the only which drawn but resolved them job description,1 was attached. The is on a in favor of defendant-movant below. (AP-16, printed government view, my only verges form Model such a result not on 7/78), improper factfinding by appellate the contents of which are filled in an tribu- discussed, post, 1. Defendants first claimed a "demotion" 2. As will be the translation re- but, place, appeal, jf had taken defendant refers counsel for upon majority, lied as to incorrect, (ex., throughout page see description, is brief) paragraph appellant’s person- dismissal, interesting nel action as a an Freudi- reflects slip, agree, accurately which I more actually what occurred. nal, directly predecessors but contravenes the rules allegedly address the actual governing summary judgment. Ac- Id. position, duties dispute the factual cordingly, given the state pleadings, is, generated view, in majority’s legally agree I cannot majority with the that au- irrelevant. thorship beyond dispute. is I do not see the line between actual Apart authorship, from the second factu- duties and powers inherent as indelible. dispute ignored al by majority relates Moreover, to the majority today extent the powers plaintiffs position to the of announces an inquiry that forecloses con- whether, given powers, political these affil- duties, sideration of actual even as evi- iation appropriate requirement.3 was an dence of powers, inherent I agree Appellee/plaintiff’s opposition to the mo- First, it. law, as a judicial matter of re- summary judgment tion for contends that job liance on descriptions as irrebuttable question as to whether or not the “[t]he statements of powers inherent has oc- position requires held de par- Abadia a curred in the statutory job context of party ticular per- affiliation for its effective descriptions, which is not the case before formance, (U question 4, is Oppo- a of fact” Marshall, us. 517, See Ness v. 660 F.2d sition to Summary Judgment). Motion for (duties 521-522 plaintiffs of enumerated in opposition supplemented The was by the city’s code); administrative Mummau v. affidavits of Dr. Victor González and Mrs. Ranck, 531 F.Supp. (E.D.Pa.1982), Rosa, Vega-de prior Carmen la incumbents affd, (3d Cir.1982) (same). 687 F.2d position question, to the but who never- Second, as a matter policy, of I believe that theless were members the P.D.P. dur- where we statutory do not have a job de- ing successive P.N.P. administrations. scription, today’s rule per veracity se They establishing attested to facts that the job descriptions is, “on file” question was not which one for- least, dangerous one, where, a especially mulated policy or for which member- here, no job description reliance on that ship political appropriate.4 a pleaded has been or shown defendants. circumstances, Under normal it would See 1192-1193; post, pp. discussion see appear that plaintiffs affidavits of Grimes, also Meeks v. 779 F.2d 420 n. predecessors, compared job when to the (7th Cir.1985)(remand 423-424 to district defendant, description present offered court because of insufficient and conflict- dispute job as to what the is about.5 The ing record on [employ- the “nature of the majority, however, regards the affidavits duties,” powers and because inherent ee’s] plaintiffs predecessors creating as not fact); is an issue for the trier of de an issue of fact. majority Alfaro Quevedo Schuck, v. De Jesús 556 F.2d states that the inquiry, relevant as a mat- (1st Cir.1977) 593 n. 4 law, (nondispute over plaintiffs ter of is not actual tasks powers premised inherent but the district court powers” position. “inherent Ante, p. 1192, at citing fact, Grimes, findings job description Meeks v. (7th Cir.1985). Thus, disputed 779 F.2d 419 n. 1 by plaintiff); or contested Tubbes- Arnold, because the affidavits of (8th and her ing v. Cir. given 3. The latter clearly here—whether plaintiffs was not established in favor.” powers, political appropriate pp. (emphasis affiliation is opinion sup- 1192-1193 See —is However, course one of law. its critical under- however, plied). explained, This as will be mis- pinning powers, is the nature of the presented. construes both factual Harlow and the issues legal issue that determines the one. dispute plaintiffs here is as to “inherent" duties, clearly a issue which cannot be factual supported by 4. This is also the affidavit of the conflicting decided under Rule 56 in view the Secretary during of Health Dr. González and nothing evidence. These factual issues have incumbency. Mrs. de la Rosa's applicable do with whether the law to those majority very established, 5. The indicates that "the fact pres- facts is which will be dispute there is a reasonable means ently discussed. standpoint qualified immunity, the law

H99 1984) (no regarding veracity job ably represents dispute powers” the “inherent contents). description the office.6 proper accepting inquiry Even that the motion, opposition Plaintiff’s how- powers,” but “inherent not actual tasks ever, quite contrary reveals assertions as dispute as to the latter in still see a factual above, powers. to inherent As noted Rule if the inherent the record. Under plaintiff’s predecessors, affidavits of who plaintiffs position are a material powers of opposite-party superiors, served under concludes), (as defendant- fact stated that the was such that movant below would have burden of appropriate require- affiliation was an dispute showing an of as absence requirement drawing ment.7 Given the of Cape fact. Mack v. Elizabeth School non-moving favor, inferences in the party’s Board, supra. that defendant has Given about, job sworn statements as to what a is showing, made no such his motion should time, especially inevitably speak over fail, requirement especially where the of powers. else, issue of inherent If nothing drawing non-moving par- inferences the ty’s great ambiguity overwhelming favor reveals as to the the inference is that the affi- powers. actual inherent predecessors, davits of these disinterested compared job when to a description of un- An examination of defendant-movant’s origin, grave clarified create doubt as to powers only inherent issue pleadings on the any nondispute over the issue of inherent political reveals a statement that affiliation argument by powers. appropriate, and an coun- So viewed—and the doubt is description job repre- sel that the attached showings by exacerbated the lack of the powers. inherent No affidavit is sents the moving party very on the issue—it is a bold (not provided even that of defendant Secre- appellate step for this court to view the tary) attesting to the critical factual issue facts as conclusive. job description accurately of whether the A third material fact relevant to the ma- Thus, represents powers. inherent if it the jority’s conclusion is defendant-movant’s al- accepted, requires, is as the law that infer- leged job description on the reliance form authorship powers ences as to and inherent discharge. as a basis of the In the must be resolved defendant-mov- that, holding today appears looking ant, what is left is not a document authored allegedly undisputed the face value of the defendant, allegation by plaintiff but an (reliance job description, defendant’s action never shown to be an uncontested factual viewed, description description), dispute, job indisput- job objectively that the on the showing by suspect allegations, summary oppose 6. The lack of a defendant is most factual unsettling judgment. because of the ease with which such But neither can we absolve defend- ants, summary judgment, statement could have been included in defend- who move for from words, ant’s In establishing legal affidavit. other follows the facts material to their con- arguments the of defendant’s counsel that de- clusions. rely accuracy fendant was entitled to Thus, case, problem apart in this from the job description place people posi- his issue, authorship is that affidavits members that, duties, regardless prior tions actual had opposite party spurious are not of a high-level potential being policy posts. If So, self-serving regard nature. even if we accuracy defendant indeed so relied on the powers, issue as inherent I think the sworn job why description, I de- then cannot see testimony predecessors these "seasoned” point, fendant’s affidavit was silent on the un- speaks importantly, they speak to to it. More perhaps simply less such reliance could not be political his- the issue of whether affiliation has good asserted in faith. torically appropriate requirement an for been job, admittedly legal but one conclusion I would like to stress that the disinterested Thus, very given facts. Bran- based on ti, material i.e., prede- nature of these that the affidavits — appropriateness affil- where the plaintiffs party, cessors were and that the not of how, inquiry, I cannot see iation is the relevant predecessors opposite-party supe- served under stand, pleadings under the the nature very substantially my affects dissent. riors — short, (whether actual) job not in inherent or agree that we must be with the dispute. who, wary plaintiffs through spurious or it, was reasonable and/or not a violation of With this record before I cannot see rights. established judge how the district can be faulted for finding issues present, of fact to be problem majority’s pre- with the hence, refusing grant for summary judg- sumption of defendant’s reliance is that ment on the merits. It is even more diffi- Secretary’s nowhere in defendant affida- vit, letter, court, cult for me to see discharge ap- his or in the motion how this summary judgment has a claim peal, been can find that there are no material any made that he or dispute making facts in without inappropri- defendants Thus, job description relied on the inferences, ate engaging or without in fac- form. And, we are back to inferences.8 if infer- tual determinations itself. drawn, wholly illogi- ences are to be a not large part, the above discussion takes (as one) legally required cal one well as granted the rule in the context of would be that since defendant did not offer summary judgment, inferences should be matter, evidence on the and since he never resolved opposing favor job referred to the with the same title used However, motion. because I do not wish description, in the his reliance on the hyper-technical this dissent to be read as a is, least, description disputed rules, on reliance the I would like to also material fact. point out the sound policy why, reason Finally, regard whether we the relevant us, the record before we find the facts as the tasks actual or the inherent this, dispute. lack of a factual To do it is powers, important it is to note that the necessary repeat majority’s to the reason- themselves, parties including for counsel ing in holding. so majority the defendant/appellants, understood the facts appears they interpreting, are 18, dispute. in On June three law, as a matter of the face job value of a days before the court ruled on the motion (as description the basis for a summary judgment, parties for the filed a defense).9 order, immunity joint pre-trial signed by analysis, Under this all counsel court, approved by courts, and appears which that future when faced listed as: hotly job contested descriptions, can

“VI. CONTESTED MATERIAL simply by noting job FACTS avoid the heat that the

description, face, per on its creates a se discharges, defense for the official who 8. Whether from which regardless authorship of doubt as to separated policy or its is mak- ing circumstances, regardless one. of his reliance on description, regardless and of the em- political loyalty appro- 4. Whether is an ployee’s priate requirement performance bona fide assertions that the de- of the office.” scription, compared objective when to the affidavit, explaining ("Executive job description 8. Defendant's the cause used in the form III” discharge/demotion, of only "Program II”). states that he "received Presumably, and Director greeting a cool from her” and that he government relying job executive on the de- "interpreted such action as a manifestation of scription job form would use the title set forth negative [him], her class, attitude towards the medical least, contrary therein. At the "well, inference of being cooperative and her intention of not probably relying job he was de- program Secretary See [his] Health.” scription” properly cannot be drawn without a Izquierdo-Mora, Affidavit of Dr. Luis A. 7fifí pro-movant bias. perceived noncoopera- and 8. This statement of discharge, contrary tion as a basis of this, how, accepting 9. Even I still do not see inference, majority’s says nothing about re- below, given the district court’s rationale we can job description liance on the form. is, decide the merits in the first instance. That Moreover, letter, discharge/demotion if the indeed believes the district court affidavit, signed by him and referred to in his (the legal dispute meaning job mistook a (“confidential po- makes reference to a title one, description) again I note that for a factual sition number 2-00460 Executive IV in the initial, our recourse should be to remand for an Quality Office of Control of the Health Services final, and decision below. Department") which is than that different job or pow- realities of the its “inherent under the collateral order doctrine of Co- ers,” simply false. is hen v. Industrial Loan Corpo- Beneficial ration, 69 S.Ct. vain, have, I any searched for authori- (1949). L.Ed. 1528 This is an issue of first ty lending slightest support even impression circuit, in this specifically left far-reaching dangerous such a and doc- Supreme undecided Court in Mitch- trine, open one which would the door to the v. Forsyth, supra ell 105 S.Ct. at 2812 n. 5. pervasive most bureaucratic abuses and The Court there held that similar orders public employees leave would without the appealable were in actions damages. protection Supreme which the Court has In the case of seeking mixed actions both emphatically sought to establish under El- damages relief, Bums, injunctive however, and I rod v. 427 U.S. 96 S.Ct. good believe that there (1975) legal policy 49 L.Ed.2d 547 Branti v. Fink- el, permitting reasons for not an interlocutory L.Ed.2d appeal can think of no other case issue. which such a factual situation would not be obviously We need not previ- restate our subject challenge. Moreover, I can general ous reference to the rule of federal imagine, without effort considerable be- appellate jurisdiction, embodied in 28 case, yond the facts of this a scenario U.S.C. prohibiting interlocutory ap- § job description prepared, where a where peals. Ante, p. 1196. A narrow excep- employee sign description must as a rule, tion to this carved out by judicial employment, policymak- condition of where exception, is the Cohen collateral order ing prerogatives duties and are ascribed to doctrine. The permits Cohen doctrine in- position, parties where all the know terlocutory appeal of “that small class [of beforehand that such policymaking duties which finally determine claims of orders] powers office, are not inherent and right from, separable to, and collateral likewise, performed. will not be When the rights action, asserted in the important too occurs, discharge government the execu- independent denied review and too qualified tive could claim immunity on the the cause itself require appellate to that document, basis of that apparently irre- consideration be deferred until the whole facts, spective of the true and even without adjudicated.” Cohen, case is supra 337 having shown reliance on its contents as U.S. at 69 S.Ct. at 1225-1226. The the basis for his actions. Can it be reason- Cohen doctrine has require been refined to ably argued that such a situation is im- that conclusively the trial court order de- from dispute, according- mune factual and disputed termine the question, that it re- ly, priori that it should receive a insulation important solve an completely sepa- issue inquiry? not, from a fact finder’s I think action, rate from the merits of the and that yet be the unintended conse- effectively be unreviewable from final quences today’s majority ruling. judgment. Coopers Lybrand & v. Live- say, supra. B. The nature the issues raised before support the district court interpretation of a narrow doctrine, the Cohen collateral order the dismissing second reason for this Supreme Court has stated that there are appeal appellate jurisdiction for lack of re- strong policy against permitting reasons lates to the nature of the issues raised interlocutory appeals: below. The suit filed the district court is “[preserving] respect seeking damages judges one the due trial injunctive and relief by minimizing appellate-court 42 Assuming, under U.S.C. 1983. interfer- ar- § guendo, the ence with the numerous decisions district court decided the defense, pre-judgment stages immunity merits of must make litigation reducing] ability then is whether there can be [and interlocutory appeal ruling litigants clog opponents from such a to harass and to 1202 action, through costly a succession of and deterrence of people

the courts able from time-consuming appeals.” and (citing Harlow, service.” Id. supra 2737). 457 U.S. at 102 at S.Ct. States, supra 104 Flanagan v. United S.Ct. at 1054. reasoning where, applicable This is not reasons, policy courts have Due to these case, present as in the resolution of the consistently that the collateral order held immunity question, joint in the context of a doctrine, right attendant of inter- and the damages cause action for equitable narrowly locutory appeal, should be con- relief, does not conclusively terminate the See, Lightner, Powers v. 752 e.g., strued. suit. because in- below (7th Cir.1985); Morgan F.2d 1255 relief, equitable cluded claims for and be- Co., 760 F.2d Kopecky Charter Bus subject cause such claims are Cir.1985); (9th Pennsylva- Yakowicz v. defense, immunity Wood v. Cir.1982); nia, (3d 683 F.2d Ba- Strickland, (3d Usery, chowski v. (1975), L.Ed.2d 214 the trial pro- below will Cir.1976). So, denial, matter, ceed. indicated, among previously As the nar- granting immunity damages from the permissible interlocutory ap- row class action does not end the official’s continued peals rulings denying immunity pub- participation in parties the law suit. The Thus, inter- damage lic officials in actions. litigate will continue to substantially the locutory appeal may ruling had to a controversy, only same the remedy, immunity in denying qualified actions for equitable one monetary, and the other be- damages, “to the extent that it turns on an ing at variance. pro- Since factual and Forsyth, supra issue of law.” Mitchell v. setting cedural essentially will not be dif- reasoning at 2817. The behind S.Ct. regardless ferent eq- of whether exception is clear: “the essence of ... uitable issues are left or whether both the possessor’s is its entitlement not equitable damage questions remain for his conduct in have answer a civil trial, subject discovery the officials Id., damages action.” S.Ct. be benefited allowance of a conclusion, support To its Court appeal.10 fractioned Mitchell demonstrated a twofold concern. hand, policy On the other reasons First, consequences it noted that the of not against expanding the collateral order doc- permitting interlocutory appeal impli- such are, anything, stronger trine if even now public’s being cated the interest in served than 28 U.S.C. 1291 was enacted. when § by acted independence officials who with appellate The docket continues to increase being fear subjected and without of to lia- ending dramatically. year In the June Second, bility money damages. for the 33,360 appeals in the 1985 there were filed unavailability Court stated that the of such appeal excluding twelve courts of the Fed- exposed relief officials to additional bur- Circuit, 31,387 compared pre- eral as to the consequence having dens as a of to stand year, percent filings.11 govern- trial —“distraction ... from their vious a six rise duties, mental discretionary During period, inhibition of the same the number of that, case, scenario, especially given majority’s This is so concern boils 10. in this the down to a joined plaintiffs ages pendent apprehension by have state law dam- the distinction between felt damages claims. Because the state law damages on federal versus state law defendants opera- claims arise out of "a common nucleus of view, liability. my strong policy the federal fact,” Gibbs, tive United Mine Workers v. against interlocutory appeals cannot be made to 715, 725, 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d distinctions, give such and much less to the in to (1966), the lawsuit below will not con- they are based. refined concerns on which claim, equitable tinue on the federal law relief Thus, damages but on state law claims. to the Proceedings Report the the Judicial Con- 11. of of majority’s extent the age liability apprehension, concern is based dam- on States, September the United ference of apprehension such of the United States Administrative Office of damages appear would to continue because of D.C., Courts, p. Washington, the survival of the state claims. Under this appeals pending appeal, in the courts of not only with a subsidized defense but with 24,758.12 percent increased nine to For a full damage indemnification for awards. superficial glance at the statistical trend The law reads as follows: figures compare need but these to we the official, “[ejvery employee ... of [or] filings year 1975 in which the for all courts Commonwealth of Puerto Rico who is 16,658 appeal amounted to cases of and the damages sued for personal his capaci- 12,128.13 Moreover, pending appeals to I ty, when the cause action is on based unduly escalating need dwell alleged plaintiff’s violations of the civil litigation cost since the debut of 28 rights, due to acts or omissions commit- Thus, by widening U.S.C. 1291. the door § faith, good ted in in the course of his interlocutory provide appeals, to we addi- employment scope and within the of his opportunities “litigants tional to harass functions, may request the Common- ____ opponents through a succession of wealth provide of Puerto Rico to him costly time-consuming appeals,” Flan- legal representation, and to subse- States, agan supra. v. United This is quently payment assume of any judg- when particularly appeals obnoxious such ment that may against be entered his taxpaying public.14 financed It person ...” incongruous at least seems somewhat 32 L.P.R.A. § despite repeated me that Justice’s Chief By reason statute, of the cited appel- problems pleas correction of these lant/ any defendants are not affected in means,15 appellate it is federal various fashion, substantial per- whether in their which, judiciary by expanding interlocutory capacity, sonal or by having official liti- jurisdiction, adds burden. gate the damage action without benefit of majority regard does not expan- its an interlocutory appeal. particular- This is of the availability interlocutory ap- sion ly so since proceed trial must nonetheless Indeed, peals unnecessary. on the issue equitable relief.16 policy to one prongs adheres above, Given I help but exam- Mitchell, apprehension personal lia- side, ine, coin, on the other plight bility impairs for damages good govern- appellee/plaintiff. In addition to suffer- respect, ment. majority’s With all due ing the ignominy discharge/demotion quixotic. in my concern is view many years government after of faithful apprehen- because executive’s service, required, damage upon she has been money liability as to asser- sion has been claim, fight tion of legislature. mooted Rico her constitutional the Puerto provides govern- “city Puerto Rico law the full brunt of hall’s” eco- ment political weight, bearing officials such as defendants nomic and below while 12. Id. Thus, narily follow actions in bad faith. appear good require- would under the faith 13. United States Appeals, Courts National statute, ment of the indemnification officials Profile, Management Statistical Federal Court punitive judgments. pay would be left their Statistics, 1975, Administrative Office of the judgment drawing legislative I believe the Courts, D.C., Washington, p. United States (1975). short, good proper the is line at faith a one. legislature apprehen- the determined has 14. As noted below, the Commonwealth of Puer- appropriate. sion as to faith actions is one’s bad pays to Rico for the defense of this suit. 32 Egregious knowing just violations are that. L.P.R.A. § 3090. Thus, legislative judgment if con- the is not to priori, done them ours should not a be either. 15. See Message generally, "Annual on the Ad- See, e.g., Fitzgerald, Harlow v. Justice,” Midyear Meeting ministration of 2727, 2738-2739, (1982) 102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 396 Association, Detroit, Michigan American Bar (“Where expected could be official know 17, 1985); (February Report "1984. Year-End statutory or that certain conduct would violate Judiciary"; Report on the “1983. Year-End on rights, he should hes- constitutional itate; be made to Judiciary.” the ..."). 16. majority expresses per- The concern as to liability punitive damages, for sonal which ordi- costs, II. Qualified Immunity economic and emotion- her both own Surely if al, appeals. on these fractioned majority, my view, in today The has any meaning and Elrod are to have Thus, changed the law. because I believe should not be toler- a double standard Supreme such the for Court test immu- nity fundamentally at odds with that ated. nom., The Court of totally bereft of considering the cuit in Bever v. 1086-1087 As pointed Rockefeller (4th Cir.1984), out Appeals for the Fourth Cir 83 L.Ed.2d 285 Gilbertson, 724 F.2d very question support the Bever, majority, cert. denied sub. — U.S.-, my position. now (1984), I am not before v. governs lows: is a All cases where ant were legal Forsyth. [the majority, norms our appellate clearly The present allegedly of law: whether language again district court] established, inquiry violated return to Mitchell court in Mitchell that need determine runs as fol- has denied defend- ^{[1] [2]} us reasoned as follows: summary judgment for the defendant on ground even under the defend- equitable relief plaintiffs The seek ant’s version of the facts the defendant’s money damages, and the well as [defend- clearly law, conduct violated established immunity being put from have no ants] clearly proscribes whether the law They equitable claims. to trial actions defendant claims he took. principal defenders of the state’s are the (emphasis supplied). Id. 105 at 2816 S.Ct. major respon- position. They will bear a language The above addresses both the litigation sibility for the outcome of the appealability qual- issue of and the test for among principal witness- will be applied ap- immunity be on such ified peals. or not es at the trial. Whether tests, potential proper Two for both damages immune from an assessment of tribunal, appellate a district court and an capaci- against them in their individual First, quote.17 follow from above as-

ties, litigation will demand their time suming plaintiffs version facts present and attention. A declaration of correct, the court must find that damage claims cannot facts, right, under such is clear. See of their attention avoid the diversion supra 105 at Forsyth, Mitchell v. S.Ct. liti- from other official duties which the 2816-2817; Leonard, Fernandez v. gation will occasion. 1216-1217, (1st 1209, 1213-1214, F.2d Cir. 1986) accepted (plaintiffs version facts (Footnote omitted). purposes appeal from denial of sum- majori- concerns of the Bever above immunity). If mary judgment ty, strong judicial policy against inter- plaintiff’s right clearly is established locutory appeals, trial and the fact that the facts, plaintiff as a matter under his loses regardless proceed eq- as to below will Likewise, plaintiff’s right of law. if relief, require contrary uitable a conclusion established, if can defendant majority. Appellate to that reached faith,18 good objective show no jurisdiction great purpose serves no Thus, circumstances, de- wins. under such Accordingly, point this case. should summary judgment is fendant’s motion for not exist. defeated.19 Id. inquiry by pleadings, a court can nonetheless find an The actual the Mitchell Court did in the law; adopt can presumptions nondispute issue of the court not involve of factual because, of the facts as the basis of hearing by certain versions due to a the district court ruling. below, legal appeal undisputed. the facts on were facts, directly undisputed Given these the Court post. point pp. proceeded inquire at 1207-1209 whether there had been a 18. I address clearly violation of established law. The above- then, language, provides only insight plain- concept accepting cited Implicit in this 19. how, disputed corollary as to where facts are Mitchell the facts is the tiffs version of

1205 permissible legal inquiry 3018, The second un- (1984); 82 L.Ed.2d 139 see also Mitchell, facts, der in the face of contested Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra 105 S.Ct. at 2818. is to find that “even under defendant’s Third, finally, the issues of clearly clearly version ... the law facts established objective law and reasonable- proscribes the actions defendant claims he ness must only and can be assessed in (emphasis took.” Id. 105 S.Ct. at 2816 terms of the circumstances. In the context reveals, supplied). language As the summary judgment, I already have not- specifically accept-

Mitchell court limited that, ed where a bona dispute fide exists ance of defendant’s facts to situations facts, over material both Mitchell and where defendant would lose immuni- require Fernandez v. accept Leonard us to ty issue. Hence majority the error of the plaintiff’s Thus, version. I will discuss the opinion, appears accept for it defendant- above two inquiries clearly established — facts, movant’s statement of the in a sum- rights and reasonableness —both under context, mary judgment as true. Such a plaintiff’s and, version because this is a Mitchell, result only not misconstrues but dissent, under accepted the version by the virtually it provide amends Rule 56 so as to i.e., majority, my view, defendant’s. potentially impermeable defenses actions purposes appeal, of this the outcome is the based on the Constitution. appellant/defendants same: prevail. do not -A. there Thus, Was a violation “clearly es- my strong disagreement I note tablished” law which a reasonable with the as to the test we must person would have known ? However, apply. because this is a dissent- ing opinion, obliged I feel to discuss the Supreme 1975 the Court decided the qualified immunity only Burns, merits not under seminal case of Elrod v. my approach 49 L.Ed.2d majority. but also that of the presented The issue to the Court was above, As noted proper test involves public employees “whether allege who First, three-step inquiry. and most deter- discharged were or threatened with minative, whether, we must decide at the discharge solely partisan because their plaintiff’s time of discharge/demotion, political affiliation or nonaffiliation state a clearly there “existed statutory established deprivation claim for of constitutional rights constitutional which a reasonable rights secured the First and Fourteenth person would have known.” Harlow v. Amendments.” Id. at at S.Ct. 2678. Fitzgerald, supra 457 U.S. at 102 Writing Brennan, plurality, for the Justice Second, S.Ct. at intrinsically re- Justices, joined by two other pa- held that inquiry, lated to the first the examination is tronage dismissals violated the First and “objective one of reasonableness of [the Amendments, 355-360, Fourteenth at id. conduct measured executive’s] 2680-2683, S.Ct. at proprie- and limited the clearly reference to established law.” Da- ty patronage policymaking dismissals to Scherer, vis v. S.Ct. positions.20 at Id. 96 S.Ct. at plaintiffs generate spuri- will not be allowed to (where undisputed) read Mitchell the facts were disputes. governing ous I believe that the rules amending judgment summary the rules of so summary judgment, as well as the district allegations that defendant-movant’s and infer- courts, well-equipped spot frivolity. accepted. ences are Such a result Moreover, repeat my vote is in no small legislative respect to Rule but part influenced the disinterested nature of effectively, could in the context of this case and plaintiffs predecessors. the affidavits of Final- others, suppress rights the First Amendment at ly, we must remember that the context here is stake. summary judgment, heavy where movants bear regarding nondispute burdens over facts. As policymaking 20. As to the line between noted, plaintiffs may the Mitchell court well be nonpolicymaking positions, Justice Brennan prove unable to all their factual claims at trial. government's noted: it is the burden to "... Thus, Id. 105 S.Ct. at 2815. I believe where overriding demonstrate an interest in order to plaintiffs spurious claims are not and state a protected validate an encroachment on interests rights, violation of established we cannot Id. at ...” S.Ct. 2687. This stern Branti, I concurring opinion, As read 2686-2687. Justice establishes the fol- Blackmun, re- joined by Justice lowing (1) Stewart rule: it is a violation of the First nonpolicymak- concurrence to stricted their and Fourteenth Amendments for a state ing, positions. nonconfidential Id. at 374- discharge employee official to an by reason 375, 96 S.Ct. at 2690-2691. Four Justices political thereof, of his affiliation or lack dissented. though even employee may poli- that abe years Four later the Court decided Bran- cymaker (2) position, or hold a confidential Finkel, supra. This time a solid ma- ti v. discharging unless the authority affirma- jority again ruled of six Justices that the tively political establishes that affiliation is protect- First and Fourteenth Amendments appropriate requirement for the effec- discharge solely public employees ed performance tive question. office in political beliefs. Id. 445 reason of their import The in terms of what 513-517, 100 S.Ct. at 1292-1294. rights “clearly established” is critical. however, importantly, More was the clarifi- reveals, language As the above the Branti applied in cation of the standard to be provided (1) Court warnings: two stern patronage discharge cases. The Court held by government that cavalier reliance em- that: ployers on “policymaking” labels such as equally party that It is clear affil- courts; (2) rejected by will be that necessarily relevant to ev- iation is not proof the burden of in showing political ery policymaking posi- or confidential appropriate requirement affiliation to be an university’s The of a tion. coach state This, rests on the defendant. is a policy, football team formulates but no strict test. Republi- seriously one could claim that better than cans make coaches Demo- years following In the five the Branti crats, versa, or vice no matter which decision, prior to de Abadia’s dis- party govern- inis control of the state charge/demotion, Branti has been cited hand, equally ment. On the other it is and/or followed a vast number of cases clear that the Governor of a State systems.21 both the federal and state appropriately believe that official Puerto Rico has not fallen behind in this help duties of various assistants who him respect. Supreme Court of Puerto speeches, explain write his views to the Rico, leading in the case of Ramos-Villa- press, legisla- or communicate with Comercio, nueva v. de Secretario performed effectively ture cannot be un- (1982), Branti, fully D.P.R. 514 embraced persons less those share his be- above-quoted passage and cited the in rul- sum, party liefs and commitments. ing Regional that the Directors of the Com- inquiry the ultimate is not whether the Department, monwealth’s Commerce al- “policymaker” or label “confidential” though policymakers and confidential em- rather, particular position; fits ployees,22 discharged politi- could not be for hiring is whether the authori- reasons, ty can demonstrate cal since it had not been estab- affil- appropriate requirement iation is an hiring authority politi- lished performance appropriate re- cal was an effective affiliation public involved. quirement discharge office of at effective post. 518,100 Id. at (emphasis Id. at S.Ct. at 1294-1295 supplied). 1294-1295. This adherence to Branti warning 22. It should be noted that under Puerto Rico would be reiterated a clear employee law a confidential is defined as: of the Court soon thereafter. who intervene or collaborate [T]hose Appendix. these cases not to im- See note substantially the formulation of the Branti, ply fully repeats simply but that each policy, directly who advise or render direct standard, case, by any has been agency show that the services to the head of ... accepted as the law. 3 L.P.R.A. 1350. § again reiterated in Franco Municipality making will not suffice. It is with respect Cidra, (1982) (discharge prong 113 D.P.R. 260 to this of Branti that the majority of of confidential employee appears willing improper), presume ignorance in to by the law defendants.23 Department Clemente Gonzalez v. But it is precisely prong (1983), of Branti that the Puerto Housing, D.P.R. 763 and most Rico Court, Supreme in addition to many of recently in Colón v. Urban Renewal and federal appendix, courts cited in the (June 4, have Housing Corporation, 84 J.T.S. 52 made resoundingly clear. any Under stan- 1984). Colon, speaking for a unanimous is, view, dard there my clearly estab- court, Negrón-García, citing Justice after right lished which only defendants could Branti, stated as follows: ignore peril. at their The courts must break the trend and island, vicious circle established on the appellants B. Did meet their burden of substituting government personnel, after establishing that reasonably be- election, general grounds each foreign political lieved that was affiliation administration; public to a sound po- appropriate requirement patronage spoils system. litical The discharge po- de Abadia’s effective scenario recurs each time there is a sition ? change political power. The above statement objective of the rea- consequences The adverse are fatal and sonableness/good faith appears test alarming: the reduction in funds is sub- that majority. problem that, The stantial. in order to determine what behavior is rea- (Citations omitted). Id. and footnotes sonable, we must assume facts. To the above it should be added if alleged The facts as by plaintiff, if we necessary, this court judicial could take presume (as were to these as accurate we by notice of a fact alluded to Justice must), establish that defendant has not met Negrón-García; namely, that in Puerto his undisputed burden. It is that highly-charged political Rico’s often atmo- was Quality Director of the Control Pro- sphere, judicial regarding political action gram Department of Health. In her discharges Rather, back-page is not news. complaint, plaintiff Quality describes the far-reaching consequences its make it the Program Control as follows: and, subject of copy headline Quality Program Control of the De- least, extensive discussion. partment of Health has the distinct re- this, Considering all I do not think it can sponsibility providing the administra- seriously contended that at the time tive structure for more than 18 exam- discharge/demotion de Abadia’s ining having boards to do with the sever- the Branti clearly standard was not estab- occupations al concerned with the health lished law and not any was known rea- Rico, including Puerto the Board of government sonable executive in Puerto Medical Examiners. Rico. stated, Briefly plaintiff’s position was to point. There is an additional As stated program establishing direct a based on Supreme the United States Court and standards pro- for admission to the health Supreme reiterated the Puerto Rico directly fession. Defendant never chal- Court, also involves burden. The fact, lenges this assertion of nor does de- burden is that the state, must show summary fendant in his motion for defendant political appropriate, affiliation to be and judgment, why policy gets as to who nodding operate subject partisan that policy- reliance on labels of on us is the violated, might only setting additionally add that this is the but that that defend- something right, which I am familiar wherein a claimant cannot ant should have known of the rely upon ignoratum legis contrary quoted maxim timeless which runs max- required presumption everyone neminem excusat. Here claimant is im and its that knows the prove only legal right that she had a law. presented Thus, further elaboration No evidence was to the court without rancor. facts, accepting plaintiffs ver- issue, except below on this sion, defendant has it cannot be said that Thus, description. assuming belief that even a reasonable established relevant to a document is determination of necessary for would be political affiliation whether or not affiliation was an position. performance of effective appropriate requirement for the effective program she description of the

But the discharge position, of de Abadia’s a conten- complaint is as stated in the administered concede, appellant/de- which I do not tion previous- As not all that offered. put eggs all their in one fendants have noted, the affida- plaintiff also includes ly basket, and their case turns on whether or predecessors, her not members vits of pur- not that document is sufficient op- under plaintiffs party, and who served poses overcoming their burden. superiors. These affidavits posite party begin proposition that there is position policymak- was not a state that the nothing position inherent in the title or one, experience, on their ing and that based de Abadia which would alert us to the appropriate not political affiliation was job conclusion that her's is a inevitable above, disin- requirement. As noted these require party membership. which would regarded as terested statements cannot all, quality After the control of the frivolous, overwhelming in- and contain an statement, ference, subject health services is a neutral matter if not a direct fact, if the powers. which, inherent inquiry issue of without further as to the opposite affidavits of one’s disinterested facts, against, party no would seem to be suffice, I predecessors do not ostensibly support. and all would But the see what will. majority contends that what counts is the description, again must look at job thus we

Thus, taking the Branti burdens and document, particularly combining plaintiff’s nonfrivo- THI2 them with facts, lous version of the it cannot be said majority relies for its con- upon which the were, objectively actions that defendant’s clusion that was re- affiliation speaking, in terms of the bur- reasonable after quired of someone who looks discharge a occurred with den. quality of health services. policy- no indication that even label according to the The crucial information accurate, important- making was and more follows, majority is as stated beneath the that, given program, the nature of the ly, heading “Duties of the Position”: any way appro- political affiliation was Secretary, “2. Governor’s Advise occupied position previously as priate. Legislators Aids and in the establishment subject to regarded as one had been goals, facts, philosophy, public policy, defendant patronage. Under such objectively control of objectives cannot be said to have been related to the burdens, light of the Branti reasonable quality health services.24 of the challenge plain- and he must be made to version at trial.

tiff’s and bills 7. Recommend drafts of bills majority’s inquiry; I now address the or dero- implement, directed to amend is, version whether under defendant’s allowing develop- gate provisions facts, he has shown himself to have of the assigned functions ment of the he met his burden reasonably believed them; process them Program; discuss appro- showing political affiliation to be Secretary, for the consideration priate. services," description more quality appearing the record is health 24. The translation (not clearly plaintiffs re- translating assertion de Calidad reflective of incorrect "al Control defendant) agency that the role of the butted de los Servicios de Salud” to mean "related translation, relating proper establish standards as she directed was to the health services.” The above, profession. the health to admission to noted is “related to the control of Legislature give departure the Governor Branti, serious that we up (and follow to determine the action taken.” accept regard should reasonable) the conclusion that members title, “[P.D.P.] inAs the case of the there is make better of health services [directors nothing language inherent in the of 2 or 7 If quality than members.” control] [P.N.P.] help appellant/defendants that will to over- Branti, supra at 100 S.Ct. at 1294- establishing political come their burden of 1295. Needless this conclusion appropriate requirement as an affiliation for effective clear, crystal would be if the evidence ex- discharge posi- of de Abadia’s cluded from consideration the majority Although undoubtedly tion. and 7 es- were presentation available for before a tablish that her is one which advis- jury, properly belongs. where it regarding es policymaking, this is part know, story. As we Last, least, but not in considering appel- unequivocably party holds “that affiliation they lant/defendants’ burden that reason- necessarily is not every policy- relevant to ably political believed that affiliation was making or position.” confidential appropriate requirement, I obliged feel 518, point 100 S.Ct. at 1295. At this it to reiterate that there is no evidence in the inquire would be relevant to whether the Izquierdo-Mora (or record that Dr. the oth- performance” “effective position of this defendants) er upon, relied or even knew of past was affected the fact that office of, existence description when belonged party holders to a different than discharged/demoted he de Abadía. government that of office at the above, For the reasons stated I believe however, Unfortunately, time. we are summary judgment properly below was de- again majority’s prohibition faced with the nied the district court. Accordingly, I against going outside the contents of the dissent. job-description document help. Thus ask, limited anything we is there 21111 APPENDIX and 7 which would indicate whether or not political appropriate? affiliation is IV., John M. Bever v. D. Rockefeller, John 1083, (4th Cir.1984); 724 F.2d 1088 Frank

I believe there is a clear indication in the Alexander, Brown v. Lamar 718 F.2d job description affiliation is 1417, (6th Cir.1983); 1427 Paul A. LaFalce appropriate para- not an factor. Both Houston, 292, (7th v. Michael 712 F.2d 293 graphs refer to the advisory various ac- Cir.1983); Petka, Robert Livas v. Edward may tions which be taken with reference to 798, (7th Cir.1983); 711 F.2d 800 Secretary, “the Jimmie the Governor his [or aids] McBee, Texas, Hogg County, et al. v. Jim Legislators Legislature].’’ [or] [the al., 834, (5th Cir.1983); Although et 703 F.2d presumed be 837 that the Sec- (or Home, retary aids) Ardith M. Systems the Governor his et al. v. Merit all Board, al., 155, belong political parties, to the same Protection et 684 F.2d 158 (D.C.Cir.1982); assuredly Harris, most ap- case as Suzanne S. et al. plied Conradi, al., 1212, Leg- Polly members of Puerto Rico’s v. et 675 F.2d islature, (11th Cir.1982); where even under the worst of 1217 Company, Fox & et minority parties guaran- Schoemehl, al., circumstances al. v. Vincent 671 et F.2d 303, representation.25 (8th Cir.1982); teed Since de Abadía is 304 Lawrence M. Gib- bons, required legislators (Kit) Bond, thus to advise Christopher of all et al. v. S. parties, al., 967, (8th Cir.1982); cannot be et 668 F.2d said 968 affiliation appropriate to be an requirement Sweeney, Christopher the Charles E. et al. v. (Kit) Bond, al., discharge ques- 542, S. et 669 F.2d 545-546 effective (8th Cir.1982); importantly, tion. Most on the state of Peter J. Laskaris v. Rich- 23, allegations al., (3d Thornburgh, defendant’s are before ard 661 F.2d 25 et us, Cir.1981); argued, do not think it can be Harry without M. Ness v. Elizabeth N. Const, 7; III, 25. See P.R. art. 16 L.P.R.A. §

1210 Bond, Orenstein v. Ind.1982); F.Supp. 528 Gannon, et al. v. al., 513, (ED Mo.1981); Marshall, 517, (3d 517 et F.2d 520 660 al., Daley, et (ND 287, F.Supp. v. Ann 289 Nekolny, et al. 531 Edward Cir.1981); Bond, al., Joseph, et al. v. et Ill.1981); 522 Painter, al., 1164, (7th et B. 1169 653 F.2d Joos v. Mo.1981); 1363, (WD F.Supp. v. 1364 Benny B. Barrett Carl Cir.1981); Bond, al., 780, (ED et F.Supp. 526 784 Thomas, 1193, Sheriff, 649 1200-1201 F.2d Bond, al., Mo.1981); Gibbons, et et al. v. v. Myron J. 1981); (5th A Cir.Unit Aufiero (WD Mo.1981); Kuhl 843, F.Supp. 850 Clarke, al., 639 F.2d 523 49, et Owen L. 50-51 al., Township, et v. mann 521 Loughney, et al. v. Joseph Cir.1981); (1st Bloomfield Fox & Wis.1981); 1242, (ED F.Supp. 1244 al., Eugene Hickey, 1063, F. et al., Schoemehl, etc., Co., et et al. v. 519 Carolyn Mazus v. Cir.1980); (3d 1064 (ED Mo.1981); Brunton, 849, F.Supp. 851 of Pa., et Transportation, Comm. Dept. U.S.A., 223, (SD v. et al. F.Supp. 225 518 al., (3d Cir.1980); 1 F.2d 873 n. 629 Paterson, al., Brady v. et 1981); 515 Ohio Dietrich, al., et Lipinski, et al. v. 578 Sweeney, N.Y.1981); (ND F.Supp. 696 de la Cruz Ind.1984); (ND F.Supp. 240 Bond, al, v. et F.Supp. et al. 127 519 Pruitt, (ND Ind. F.Supp. 1303 590 Chardon, al., et Soto v. Mo.1981); (ED 514 The Honorable Salvatore Nilan v. 1984); (D.P.R.1981); Layden v. F.Supp. al., Meo, (ED De et F.Supp. Costello, al., (ND et F.Supp. Fletcher, Dove v. F.Supp. Pa.1983); al., Cooperman, et v. N.Y.1981); Garretto La.1983); McMullan, et al. v. 600, (WD 603 Shak N.Y.1981); 816, (SD F.Supp. 818 510 al., Thornburgh, et Dick The Honorable man, Organiza The Democratic et al. v. Pa.1983); (ED 1070, F.Supp. 1071 570 al., County, et F.Supp. tion Cook 508 (Teek) Barnes, Bosley, et al. v. Freeman Ill.1981); Mirabella, et al. 1063, (ND 1068 Jr., al., 1406, (ED et F.Supp. 1408 568 City Board Elections v. The Ware, al., v. et Douglas, et al. Mo.1983); York, 338, (SD New F.Supp. 339 N.Y. 507 W.VA.1983); (SD 966, F.Supp. 970 568 Sams, Trippy, et al. v. F.Supp. 1980); 512 Farmer, al., et Landry, et v. al. 564 5, (ED Tenn.1980). 6 Gannon, et 598, (D.R.I.1983); F.Supp. 604 al., Daley, et 1377, al. v. F.Supp. 1382 561 New Dehorty v. Castle Ill.1983); (ND Council, al., County 889, et F.Supp. 560 Dusanenko, Ma et al. v. (D.Del.1983);

893 al., loney, et 822, (SD F.Supp. 828 560 Begg Moffitt, v. N.Y.1983); F.Supp. 555 Lancaster, (ND Ill.1983); Joyner v. et 1344 America, Appellee, UNITED STATES al., 809, (Mid.D.N.C.1982); F.Supp. 553 817 Shakman, Orga Democratic et al. v. The v. al., County, et nization Cook 552 MAZZA, Antonio J. Dumas v. Ill.1982); (ND F.Supp. 908 Defendant, Appellant. Treen, (Mid.D.La. F.Supp. 1162-1164 551 America, Appellee, UNITED STATES of al., Larson, et Rosenbaum v. 442 1982); v. Visser (Mid.D.Pa.1982); F.Supp. 610 v. al., Magnarelli, et F.Supp. 1337 542 DECOLOGERO, Anthony Cohalan, al., v. et Ecker N.Y.1982); (ND Defendant, Appellant. N.Y.1982); (ED F.Supp. 901 542 Nos. 85-1184. Gable, al., Sames, al., et et v. F.Supp. 542 Evenson, Joseph et al. Appeals, (ED Pa.1982); United States Court 51 al., Crawford, et First Circuit. F.Supp. 689 v. The Vil- Goldberg, et al. (D.N.D.1982); Argued Jan. al., Spring Valley et lage of F.Supp. 3, 1986. Decided June v. Gov’t Moorhead (SD N.Y.1982); V.I., al., (DC et F.Supp. County Board v. Starke V.I.1982); Sands Commissioners, (ND F.Supp. 712

Case Details

Case Name: Luisa A. De Abadia v. Hon. Luis Izquierdo Mora

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jun 27, 1986

Citation: 792 F.2d 1187

Docket Number: 85-1505, 85-1520

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.