Court Opinion

ID: 2966029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:53.134527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:08.258609
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-2165

                        LUISA SOTO-RIVERA,

                     Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                v.

        DOMINISA SANTIAGO-GUADARRAMA, IN HER PERSONAL AND
         OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT, RIO
                       PIEDRAS I DISTRICT,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

          [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
     
     Luisa Soto-Rivera on brief pro se.
     Carlos Lugo Fiol, Solicitor General, Edda Serrano Blasini,
Deputy Solicitor General, and Leticia Casalduc-Rabell, Assistant
Solicitor General, on brief for appellees.

October 5, 1999

  
            Per Curiam.       Plaintiffs were  warned in two
  court orders that a failure to clarify their claims of
  political discrimination could lead to a dismissal of their
  complaint with prejudice.  They also were directed to attend
  the initial scheduling conference through a representative who
  was prepared to explain the complaint.  Although two amended
  complaints were filed, the allegations against each defendant
  remained too vague and ambiguous to enable the defendants to
  file meaningful answers.  The attorney who appeared for
  plaintiffs at the pretrial conference was not prepared to
  explain their claims,  and the response to defendants' motion
  to dismiss indicated that there would be no further
  clarification.
            Under the circumstances (1) we see no abuse of
  discretion nor other error in the dismissal with prejudice of
  the federal claims against the defendants in their individual
  capacities, and the dismissal of the supplemental state-law
  claims without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.  We also see
  (2) no basis for objection to the dismissal of the official
  capacity claims since plaintiffs conceded the ground for
  dismissal below, and (3) no prejudice to plaintiffs from the
  earlier decision that a proposed claim under the Americans with
  Disabilities Act could not be properly joined in this action. 
            We do not reach defendants' argument for a
  "heightened pleading" standard, since this complaint was
  properly dismissed for failure to comply with two court orders. 
  Cf. Judge v. Lowell, 160 F.3d 67, 73 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding
  that to protect the policies underlying the doctrine of
  qualified immunity a trial court may exercise its discretion to
  require specificity in the pleading of the element of intent). 
            The judgment is affirmed.