Hualde Redin v. Torres ( 1993 )

USCA1 Opinion

        December 15, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-1651

                            ALFREDO HUALDE REDIN, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

             ANABEL TORRES, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PUERTO RICO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ____________________

            Alfredo Hualde Redin  and Maria  Susana Costa  De Hualde-Redin  on
            ____________________
        brief pro se.
            Carlos  Lugo Fiol, Acting Solicitor General, and Vannessa Ramirez,
            _________________                                ________________
        Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for government appellees.
            Luis A.  Gonzalez on  brief for  appellees William  Balbi, Anabela
            _________________
        Torres, Jose Sarro, Awilda Torre and Cecelia Herrans Lopez.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                      Per  Curiam.    We  affirm  substantially  for  the
                      ___________

            reasons stated by  the district court in its  March 24, 1993,

            April 16, 1993, and May 18, 1993 opinions and orders.  We add

            the following.

                      1.   With  respect to plaintiffs'  Fourth Amendment

            claim, regardless  what plaintiffs'  rights in the  vestibule

            may be under Puerto Rico  law, People v. Perez, 15  P.R. Sup.
                                           ______    _____

            Ct. Off'l Translations 1095, 1099 (1984), the officers' entry

            into  the  common  vestibule  did  not  violate  the  federal

            constitution.   United States  v. Concepcion, 942  F.2d 1170,
                            _____________     __________

            1171 (7th Cir. 1991) (officers' entry into locked common area

            shared by  five tenants did not violate  the Fourth Amendment

            because a tenant  has no reasonable expectancy  of privacy in

            the common areas of an apartment building); United  States v.
                                                        ______________

            Penco,  612  F.2d 19,  24-25  (2d  Cir.  1979)  ("The  Fourth
            _____

            Amendment protection accorded to an  apartment dweller's home

            does not extend  to the lobby of his apartment building . . .

            or the area  just inside a hall  door that was meant  to lock

            but did  not . . . or the  hallway just outside his apartment

            door . .  .."); United States  v. Cruz Pagan,  537 F.2d  554,
                            _____________     __________

            557-58 (1st Cir.  1976) (noting that  whether or not  agents'

            entry  into condominium garage  was a technical  trespass "is

            not  the  relevant inquiry"  and concluding  that condominium

            owner  had no  reasonable expectation  of  privacy in  garage

            area).



                                         -2-















                      2.   With respect  to plaintiffs'  claims that  the

            police failed  adequately to investigate  plaintiffs' various

            complaints and take ameliorative action, plaintiffs failed to

            state a federal claim.  DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of
                                    ________    _________________________

            Social Services, 489  U.S. 189, 195-97 (1989)  ("[N]othing in
            _______________

            the language  of the Due  Process Clause .  . .  requires the

            State to  protect  the life,  liberty,  and property  of  its

            citizens against invasion by  private actors.  The Clause  is

            phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a

            guarantee  of   certain   minimal  levels   of   safety   and

            security.").

                      3.   All  the briefs  and  reply briefs  plaintiffs

            filed  have been considered.   Plaintiffs' motions  to strike

            appellees' briefs,  for oral  argument, for  further briefing

            time, and to sanction appellees are all denied.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________





















                                         -3-