Halloran v. Bosquet ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          April 22, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




____________________



        No. 95-2041



                            PAUL J. HALLORAN, ETC, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                            MICHAEL BOSQUET, ETC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.




____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
___________________




____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,



                                   Circuit Judges.
______________




____________________







             Bruce D. Todesco for appellants.
________________

             James R. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Jeffrey B.
____________                                        __________

        Pine, Attorney General, was on brief for appellee Michael Bosquet.
____

             Kathleen M. Powers, with whom Marc DeSisto and Desisto Law
__________________            ____________     ___________

        Offices were on brief for appellees Town of Middletown, Robert A.
_______

        Gibson, Vincent Truver, Robert Sylvia and Officer Frank Campagna.






____________________






____________________





























                    Per Curiam.  In this case the appellant was  permitted,
Per Curiam.
__________



          in  effect, to amend his complaint by oral representations to the



          trial judge to describe in detail the facts  that he was prepared



          to  prove in order to show that the police had unconstitutionally



          manufactured  evidence  against  him.   There  is  no  claim that



          inadequate discovery was permitted or that on any underlying fact



          there  were two different versions  of events and  that trial was



          needed in order to determine what happened.  Taken as true, we do



          not think appellant's factual allegations amounted to a constitu-



          tional  claim  that the  evidence  was manufactured  or  that the



          Constitution was otherwise violated.



                    Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________





























































                                          2