Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Torres-Gonzalez v. Benito, 27 F.3d 554, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. Ramon Torres Gonzalez and his family sued federal and local law enforcement officers for alleged constitutional violations during his arrest on drug charges, for which he was later acquitted. 2. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that tight handcuffs alone did not amount to excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. 3. The appeals court affirmed, agreeing that minor injuries from handcuffing were insufficient for an excessive force claim, especially given the lack of evidence that officers aimed to mistreat or retaliate against Torres.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Torres-Gonzalez v. Benito, 27 F.3d 554, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    76 views3 pages
    1. Ramon Torres Gonzalez and his family sued federal and local law enforcement officers for alleged constitutional violations during his arrest on drug charges, for which he was later acquitted. 2. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that tight handcuffs alone did not amount to excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. 3. The appeals court affirmed, agreeing that minor injuries from handcuffing were insufficient for an excessive force claim, especially given the lack of evidence that officers aimed to mistreat or retaliate against Torres.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-02-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 27 F.3d 554 Docket: 93-1454

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Ramon Torres Gonzalez and his family sued federal and local law enforcement officers for alleged constitutional violations during his arrest on drug charges, for which he was later acquitted. 2. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that tight handcuffs alone did not amount to excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. 3. The appeals court affirmed, agreeing that minor injuries from handcuffing were insufficient for an excessive force claim, especially given the lack of evidence that officers aimed to mistreat or retaliate against Torres.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    76 views3 pages

    Torres-Gonzalez v. Benito, 27 F.3d 554, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. Ramon Torres Gonzalez and his family sued federal and local law enforcement officers for alleged constitutional violations during his arrest on drug charges, for which he was later acquitted. 2. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that tight handcuffs alone did not amount to excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. 3. The appeals court affirmed, agreeing that minor injuries from handcuffing were insufficient for an excessive force claim, especially given the lack of evidence that officers aimed to mistreat or retaliate against Torres.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    27 F.

    3d 554

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    Ramon Torres GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants,
    v.
    Sargento BENITO, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
    No. 93-1454

    United States Court of Appeals,


    First Circuit.
    February 7, 1994

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
    Rico [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge ]
    Frederic Chardon Dubos for appellants.
    Silvia Carreno Coll, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Charles
    E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellees Thomas
    M. Telles and Cruz Cordero, Jr.
    Vannessa Ramirez, Assistant Solicitor General, Department of Justice,
    with whom Carlos Lugo Fiol, Acting Solicitor General, and Reina Colon
    De Rodriguez, Acting Deputy Solicitor General, were on brief for state
    defendants-appellees Benito and Lopez-Feliciano.
    D.Puerto Rico.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam.

    Ramon Torres Gonzalez ("Torres") was arrested by federal agents and local
    police at his home in Puerto Rico on the night of September 18, 1987. He was
    charged with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)

    (1). He was subsequently tried and acquitted by the jury. On September 19,
    1988, Torres, his wife, and two children brought a civil action charging various
    federal and local law enforcement officers with violating the plaintiffs'
    constitutional rights, primarily based upon alleged rough treatment meted out to
    Torres incident to his arrest.
    2

    The named defendants were two agents of the Drug Enforcement


    Administration, a Puerto Rico police sergeant, a local police detective, and the
    superintendent of police in Puerto Rico (who was charged with inadequately
    supervising the police). The constitutional claims against the local officials
    were based on 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983, 1985; those against the federal officials
    were apparently based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal
    Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Related pendent claims were
    asserted under Puerto Rican law.

    After a number of motions and deposition discovery, the defendants moved for
    summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that the defendants'
    motions for summary judgment be granted and that the pendant state claims not
    be entertained. The district court adopted the recommendation, granting
    summary judgment on the merits on the federal claims and declining to proceed
    with the state claims. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

    In their brief on appeal, the only claim that plaintiffs try seriously to develop is
    Torres' own claim that the agents used excessive force incident to the arrest.1
    Although he says that the agents used vile language, we do not think this makes
    out a constitutional claim, nor can much weight be given to Torres' terse
    statement that he was grabbed by the chest and pushed onto a sofa. He does not
    claim to have been struck. The only allegation that arouses some concern is his
    claim that his hands were handcuffed behind him during his transportation in
    such a way that his hands swelled and were sore for several days.

    Although Torres' brief on appeal cites only to his right to "substantive" due
    process, the Supreme Court has said that abuse incident to arrest is tested under
    the Fourth Amendment's more specific provisions governing seizure. Graham
    v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); cf. Albright v. Oliver, 62 U.S.L.W. 4078 (U.S.
    Jan. 24, 1994) (plurality opinion). Whatever the constitutional source of
    protection, trying to determine when physical force is so excessive as to amount
    to unconstitutional official action is a recurrent and vexing problem that arises
    in various situations. E.g., Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992) (prison
    discipline).

    Accepting all of Torres' allegations as true-for purposes of summary judgment-

    Accepting all of Torres' allegations as true-for purposes of summary judgmentwe agree with the magistrate judge and the district court that tight handcuffs
    standing alone are not enough to proceed to trial on a constitutional claim. "
    [M]inor physical injuries simply are insufficient to support an inference that ...
    officers used inordinate force to effect the intended arrest...." Dean v. City of
    Worcester, 924 F.2d 364, 369 (1st Cir. 1991). Torres himself said in deposition
    that he had never asked a doctor to treat the injury and never visited a hospital,
    nor is there any claim of permanent damage. Compare Hansen v. Black, 885
    F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1989).

    The Supreme Court has cautioned against using subjective tests or looking to
    motivation in appraising excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment.
    Graham, 490 U.S. at 397- 99. Yet Torres' claim fares no better even if one
    thinks that why an action was taken might cast some indirect light on the
    objective reasonableness of the action. Here, there is no evidence that the
    police deliberately aimed to mistreat Torres, to retaliate against him, or to do
    anything unrelated to ordinary security measures in aid of an arrest. Compare
    Hansen, 885 F.2d at 645.

    This conclusion disposes of the case as it has been briefed on appeal. Torres'
    children claim to have been scared during the arrest but, with nothing more
    alleged, this is hardly actionable conduct. Torres' wife was apparently searched
    at another location but nothing in the appeals brief even hints at the supposed
    wrong. Finally, the brief refers in passing to testimony given by one of the
    agents at trial but the brief does not explain what was unlawful, and we treat the
    issue as abandoned.

    Affirmed.

    The amended complaint charged that the arrest was made without a warrant but
    in due course a warrant was produced and is not challenged on appeal. The
    complaint also alleged that Torres' car and apartment were searched but the
    brief on appeal makes no effort to show that the searches were unlawful

    You might also like