Cruz-Delgado v. Rivera-Rosa ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1529



                 ANGELES M. CRUZ-DELGADO, ET AL.,



                     Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                v.



                DANIEL RIVERA-ROSA, ETC., ET AL.,



                      Defendants, Appellees.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



         [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                        Circuit Judges.









     John E. Mudd and Ortiz Toro & Ortiz Brunet on brief for

appellants.

     Isabel Abislaiman-Quilez and Garcia & Fernandez on brief for

appellee, Ismael Betancourt-Lebron.













October 13 ,1998













     Per Curiam.  Upon careful consideration of the briefs and

record, and upon de novo review, we conclude that the claims

against defendant Rivera-Rosa properly were dismissed under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  The complaint agrees that the defendant fired

while in hot pursuit of a person who had just stolen money from a

restaurant, and the complaint also recognizes that the thief might

well have been armed.  As thus pled, the complaint does not set

forth a "purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object

of arrest," and it does not allege "conduct shocking to the

conscience" as necessary to state a viable due process claim.

County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 1711-12 (1998); see

also Evans v. Avery, 100 F.3d 1033, 1038 (1st Cir. 1996).

     We further conclude that the claims against defendant

Betancourt Lebron properly were dismissed.  On the record before

us, that defendant's connection, if any at all, with the shooting

incident is simply too remote to support a claim of personal or

supervisory liability.  See Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882

F.2d 553, 563 (1st Cir. 1989).

     Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.













                               -2-