Court Opinion

ID: 2963444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:50.059303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.379010
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                    
                                  __________________

          No. 93-1579
                                   GORDON C. REID,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                    
                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                                    
                                  __________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                    
                                  __________________

               Gordon C. Reid on brief pro se.
               ______________
               Robert  G.  Whaland,  William  A.  Grimes  and  McDonough  &
               ___________________   ___________________       ____________
          O'Shaughnessy on brief for appellee.
          _____________
               Carolyn M.  Kirby, Assistant County Attorney,  on Motion for
               _________________
          Summary Affirmance for appellee.

                                                    
                                  __________________

                                     June 6, 1995
                                                    
                                  __________________

                      CYR, Circuit  Judge.   After a New  Hampshire court
                      CYR, Circuit  Judge
                           ______________

            set aside his convictions on  two charges of felonious sexual

            assault  against a  child,  pro se  plaintiff Gordon  C. Reid
                                        ___ __

            initiated  this  civil  rights  action  for compensatory  and

            punitive damages  against,  inter alia,  Hillsborough  County
                                        _____ ____

            prosecutors Marguerite Wageling  and Paul McDonough, Manches-

            ter police  officers Gary  Simmons, Ronald Paul,  James Ahern

            and Richard Gilman, and defense attorney Richard Renfro.  The

            district court dismissed all claims, and Reid appealed. 

                      For  the reasons  hereinafter discussed,  we affirm

            the district court order dismissing the claims against prose-

            cutors  Wageling and  McDonough,  as well  as the  claim that

            Renfro  conspired with the prosecutors to conceal exculpatory

            evidence from Reid.  We vacate the order dismissing the false

            arrest and  malicious prosecution  claims against  the police

            defendants and the due process claim alleging that the police

            defendants  intentionally  concealed exculpatory  impeachment

            evidence from the prosecutors.  

                                          I
                                          I

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND
                                      __________

            A.   The State Court Proceedings
            A.   The State Court Proceedings
                 ___________________________

                      Reid was  arrested, without a warrant,  on June 21,

            1986,  and  charged with  three  counts  of felonious  sexual

                                          2

            assault upon a  six-year-old girl, Misty          ("Misty").1
                                                      ______

            He  was incarcerated  immediately  upon  arrest.   Manchester

            Police Sergeant Gary Simmons  testified at the probable cause

            hearing  ultimately held  on August  22, 1986,  and  Reid was

            bound over for trial.  Between September 9, 1986 and June 24,

            1987, with assistance from  stand-by counsel, Reid filed five

            successful motions to compel  disclosure of exculpatory  evi-

            dence.  

                      Reid  represented  himself  at   trial,  personally

            cross-examining  the State's witnesses, including Misty, with

            assistance from  stand-by counsel.  After  the jury acquitted

            Reid on one  count, he moved to set  aside his convictions on

            the two remaining counts.  

                      Sometime in  September 1988, in response  to a fur-

            ther  motion  to  disclose exculpatory  evidence,  the  State

            produced documents  tending to  undermine the  credibility of

            Misty, her sister Wendy,  and their mother.  Among  the docu-

            ments were Manchester Police Department reports, dated Decem-

            ber 20, 1985  ("1985 Report")  and April 4,  1986 ("1986  Re-

            port"), prepared by Sergeant Simmons, containing questionable

            accounts of previous sexual  assaults allegedly made  against

                              
          ____________________

               1The  arrest was made  pursuant to New  Hampshire Rev. Stat.
          Ann.   594:10(II)(b), which provides that "[a]n arrest by a peace
          officer  without a  warrant on  a charge  of a  felony  is lawful
          whenever: ... The  officer has reasonable ground  to believe that
          the person arrested has  committed a felony."  The  New Hampshire
          courts interpret  "reasonable ground" as the  substantial equiva-
          lent of "probable cause."  See State v. Vachon, 533 A.2d 384, 386
                                     ___ _____    ______
          (N.H. 1987).

                                          3

            Misty by other individuals.2   Reid also was provided  with a

            New Hampshire  Department of Children &  Youth Services ("DC-

            YS") file  on Misty  and her  family, which  included reports

            that Misty's mother had beaten and bruised Misty and  engaged

            in sexual intercourse  with her boyfriend in  front of Misty.

            These allegations  originated, in part, with  Misty's sister,

            Wendy.   It further revealed  that Misty's mother had charac-

            terized Wendy's allegations as  lies prompted by Wendy's drug

            use and desire to move  in with her boyfriend when Wendy  was

            only sixteen years old.   The DCYS file also  described aber-

            rant  sexual behavior by Misty  herself, at age  six, such as

            performing fellatio on another child.3

                      Reid was released on  bail while the superior court

            conducted  a "nonevidentiary  hearing" on  the motion  to set

            aside  his convictions.  The court  concluded that the police

            reports  of prior  sexual  assaults  constituted  exculpatory

            impeachment evidence  which gave  rise to a  reasonable prob-

            ability that  the outcome  of Reid's  trial  would have  been

            different had the evidence been disclosed to the trial court,

            since it directly  undermined the testimony of Misty  and her

                              
          ____________________

               2On  their face,  the  reports do  not  indicate that  Misty
          falsely accused anyone.  The 1985 report indicates that Misty had
          been sexually  abused by a person  or persons unknown.   The 1986
          report states that Misty  denied allegations made by a  neighbor,
                                    ______
          who  complained  that Misty  had been  sexually  abused by  a man
          referred to simply as "George." 

               3It  is not clear whether the DCYS file was before the state
          court. 

                                         -4-
                                          4

            mother.   Under the New Hampshire Rape Shield Law, Rev. Stat.

            Ann.   632-A:6, "a defendant must be afforded the opportunity

            to show,  by specific incidents  of sexual conduct,  that the

            prosecutrix  has the  experience  and ability  to contrive  a

            statutory rape  charge against  him."   State v.  Howard, 121
                                                    _____     ______

            N.H. 53, 61 (1981).   On October 5, 1988, the  superior court

            set the  two remaining  convictions aside  and ordered a  new

            trial.   In  December 1988,  all  charges against  Reid  were

            dropped. 

            B.   The Federal District Court Proceedings
            B.   The Federal District Court Proceedings
                 ______________________________________

                 (i)  The Original Complaint
                 (i)  The Original Complaint
                      ______________________

                      The  original  civil  rights complaint  in  federal

            district court alleged that between the date of arrest,  June

            1986, and  the date his  convictions were set  aside, October

            1988, prosecutors  Wageling and  McDonough caused Reid  to be

            deprived of  his liberty without probable  cause in violation

            of the Fourth Amendment.  It alleged that the prosecutors, by

            withholding the exculpatory  evidence, violated Reid's rights

            to due process, a  fair trial, equal protection of  the laws,

            and to confront  and obtain witnesses.  Reid  further alleged

            that  he  was arrested  by  Manchester  Police Sergeant  Gary

            Simmons  on  the basis  of  unreliable  information and  that

            Simmons  continuously  withheld exculpatory  evidence between

            June 1986 and October 1988.  Finally, he alleged that Richard

            Renfro, Esquire,  deprived Reid of his  Sixth Amendment right

                                         -5-
                                          5

            to the effective assistance of counsel  by failing to prepare

            the case adequately for trial.  

                      On June 19, 1989,  a United States magistrate judge

            recommended  that all but one  claim be dismissed.4   The re-

            port and recommendation noted  that prosecutors Wageling  and

            McDonough were  absolutely immune  from suit under  Imbler v.
                                                                ______

            Pachtman,  424 U.S. 409 (1976),  and that Reid  had failed to
            ________

            allege the requisite state action to sustain  a claim against

            defense counsel  Renfro under Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
                                          ___________    ______

            312, 320-21 (1981).  

                 (ii) The First Amended Complaint
                 (ii) The First Amended Complaint
                      ___________________________

                      Reid filed  an amended  pro se complaint,  alleging
                                              ___ __

            federal and state civil rights violations and adding Manches-

            ter Police  defendants Gilman,  Ahern and  Paul.   It alleged

            that  the police  defendants  arrested Reid  on the  basis of

            unreliable information, in violation of the Fourth Amendment,

            and deliberately  suppressed  exculpatory evidence  from  the

            time of his arrest until after his trial, in violation of his

            right to equal protection,  the effective assistance of coun-

            sel, a fair trial, due process, and the right to confront and

            obtain witnesses.   The first amended  complaint also alleged

            that prosecutors Wageling and McDonough  had instructed their

            codefendants  in the  present  civil rights  action, and  the

                              
          ____________________

               4The magistrate judge recommended  that Reid be permitted to
          submit  further  documentation  on  the  claim  against  Sergeant
          Simmons.

                                         -6-
                                          6

            witnesses at Reid's criminal trial, not to mention the police

            reports on prior sexual assault complaints relating to Misty,

            thereby prompting  these codefendants to  respond falsely  to

            inquiries  concerning the  withheld evidence both  before and

            during the  criminal trial.   See  Hilliard v.  Williams, 465
                                          ___  ________     ________

            F.2d 1212, 1215  (6th Cir.  1972), rev'd, 540  F.2d 220,  221
                                               _____

            (6th Cir. 1976)  (per curiam).   The first amended  complaint

            reiterated  Reid's allegation  that the  prosecutors deliber-

            ately  withheld the exculpatory  evidence before, during, and

            for fourteen months after Reid's criminal trial, resulting in

            his unlawful  conviction and  imprisonment.  Finally,  it al-

            leged that  the defendant  officers and prosecutors  had con-

            spired to deprive Reid of his constitutional rights.  

                      The magistrate  judge issued  a Further  Report and

            Recommendation on February 6,  1990, which concluded that the

            first amended complaint stated an actionable Fourth Amendment

            claim for false arrest against the police defendants and that

            Reid's motion to add police defendants Gilman, Ahern and Paul

            should  be  allowed.   Citing Imbler,  424  U.S. at  430, the
                                          ______

            magistrate  judge  concluded,  nonetheless,  that  the claims

            against  prosecutors Wageling  and McDonough  were barred  by

            absolute prosecutorial immunity.  Finally,  the report recom-

            mended that the claim against Attorney Renfro be dismissed. 

                      On March  22, 1991, the district  court adopted the

            Further  Report  and  Recommendation, effectively  dismissing

                                         -7-
                                          7

            prosecutors  Wageling  and  McDonough,  and  defense  counsel

            Renfro, as defendants.5

                 (iii)  The Third Amended Complaint6
                                                    
                 (iii)  The Third Amended Complaint6
                        ____________________________

                      On June 10, 1992, following further discovery, Reid

            requested leave  to file  the third amended  complaint, reas-

            serting all claims against the prosecutors, adding a conspir-

            acy claim  against Renfro,  and naming additional  police and

            prosecutor defendants.   The third amended complaint  further

            particularized  the  claims  against the  police  defendants,

            asserting that their failure to disclose exculpatory evidence

            constituted  actionable  malicious  prosecution and  violated

            Reid's  constitutional  rights.   In  contrast  to the  first

            amended complaint, which indicated  that the prosecutors knew

            about the exculpatory evidence  but instructed the police and

            others to conceal it,  Reid's third amended complaint, liber-

            ally  construed,  see Estelle  v.  Gamble, 429  U.S.  97, 106
                              ___ _______      ______

            (1976), asserted  that the police defendants  knew the police
                                   ___ ______ __________  ____ ___ ______

            reports and  the DCYS file  existed, but concealed  them from
            _______ ___  ___ ____ ____  _______  ___ _________  ____ ____

            the prosecutors for almost  two years, between June  1986 and
            ___ ___________ ___ ______  ___ _____

            August  1988.   Thus,  the third  amended complaint  restated

            Reid's previous allegations against the police defendants and

                              
          ____________________

               5Reid  and the  police  defendants objected  to the  Further
          Report  and Recommendation.    Although Reid  did  not object  to
          dismissal of the claim  against Renfro, he reserved the  right to
          amend it following discovery.

               6A second  amended complaint, naming a  former New Hampshire
          governor as a defendant, was dismissed by the district court.

                                         -8-
                                          8

            pleaded distinct claims  for negligence, false arrest,  mali-

            cious  prosecution, wrongful withholding  of exculpatory evi-

            dence, and conspiracy.

                      As for  the prosecutors  and  Attorney Renfro,  the

            third amended complaint alleged, in the alternative, that the

            prosecutors knew  of the  exculpatory evidence but  failed to

            disclose the  information to Renfro, or  that the prosecutors
                                                 __

            disclosed the exculpatory information to  Renfro but enlisted

            him in  their conspiracy to conceal  the exculpatory informa-

            tion  from Reid.   We  turn to the  various claims  raised on

            appeal. 

             

                                          II
                                          II

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

            A.   The Claims Against the Prosecutors
            A.   The Claims Against the Prosecutors
                 __________________________________

                      Reid contends  that  the district  court  erred  in

            dismissing  his  claims  against  prosecutors   Wageling  and

            McDonough.  He argues  that Imbler "absolute immunity" should
                                        ______

            not extend to claims  for withholding exculpatory evidence in

            direct violation of  trial court orders, where it  is alleged

            that the prosecutors repeatedly misled the trial court itself

            throughout the  criminal proceedings.   Reid claims  that the

            disclosure orders issued by the trial court displaced whatev-

            er discretion the prosecutors may have had concerning disclo-

            sure of exculpatory  evidence, consequently their  failure to

                                         -9-
                                          9

            disclose was not a prosecutorial function  at all, but merely

            ministerial.    Finally,  he  contends  that the  prosecutors

            repeatedly lied to the trial court about the existence of the

            exculpatory evidence, whereas in Imbler the prosecutor volun-
                                             ______

            tarily disclosed  the evidence shortly after  learning of it.

                      The district court dismissed the claims against the

            prosecutors  as  frivolous under  28  U.S.C.    1915(d).   We

            review only for abuse of discretion, see Watson v. Caton, 984
                                                 ___ ______    _____

            F.2d 537, 539 (1st Cir. 1993), and find none.7 

                      First, Reid  alleged no facts  suggesting that  the

            prosecutors had anything  to do  with the arrest.   The  com-

            plaint therefore  failed to state an  actionable false arrest

            claim.8 

                      Second, under  Imbler "it is 'now  [a] well-settled
                                     ______

            rule  that a prosecutor cannot be  held personally liable for

            the  knowing suppression of exculpatory information.'" Robin-
                                                                   ______

                              
          ____________________

               7Although the  magistrate judge recommended that  the claims
          against the prosecutors  be dismissed for  "fail[ing] to state  a
          cause of  action"    language strongly suggesting a Rule 12(b)(6)
          dismissal    Reid was given notice of the deficiencies and a full
          opportunity to amend  the complaint.   Thus,  dismissal under  28
          U.S.C.   1915(d) was proper.   See Purvis v. Ponte, 929 F.2d 822,
                                         ___ ______    _____
          826-27 (1st Cir. 1991).  

               8As New Hampshire  recognizes the torts of  false arrest and
          malicious  prosecution, see Stock  v. Byers, 424  A.2d 1122, 1123
                                  ___ _____     _____
          (N.H. 1980),  those claims should have been  analyzed under state
          law,  rather than   1983.  Given an adequate state-law remedy for
          a procedural due process violation, no   1983 claim lies.  Perez-
                                                                     ______
          Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st  Cir. 1994); Smith v.
          ____    ______________                                   _____
          Massachusetts Dep't. of Correction, 936 F.2d 1390, 1402 (1st Cir.
          __________________________________
          1991); Torres v. Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 410 (1st
                 ______    ________________________
          Cir. 1990).  

                                         -10-
                                          10

            son v. Volkswagenwerk AG,  940 F.2d 1369, 1372-73  (10th Cir.
            ___    _________________

            1991) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091 (1992);
                                      _____ ______

            Myers  v. Morris, 810 F.2d  1437, 1446 (8th  Cir.), cert. de-
            _____     ______                                    _____ ___

            nied, 484 U.S. 828 (1987).9  See Campbell v. Maine,  787 F.2d
            ____                         ___ ________    _____

            776, 777 (1st Cir. 1986)  (per curiam); Hilliard v. Williams,
                                                    ________    ________

            540  F.2d  220, 221-22  (6th Cir.  1976)  (per curiam).   The

            Imbler  rule has  been  applied where  prosecutors failed  to
            ______

            disclose  exculpatory evidence specifically  requested by the

            defense, see Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 77, 78-80 (6th Cir.
                     ___ _____    _________

            1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1048 (1987), and where prosecu-
                   _____ ______

            tors misled the trial court in order to conceal their failure

            to disclose exculpatory evidence, see Wilkinson v. Ellis, 484
                                              ___ _________    _____

            F. Supp. 1072, 1082 (E.D. Pa. 1980). 

                      Thus, we think the trial court discovery orders did

            not displace Imbler immunity.  In the first place, it  is in-
                         ______

            accurate  to assert, as Reid does, that there was no prosecu-

            torial discretion  left to  be exercised respecting  the dis-

            closure of  this evidence.   On the contrary,  the disclosure

            orders were issued  in response to  motions for "any  'excul-

            patory' evidence which could assist [Reid] in the preparation

            and presentation of his defense," broad language indicating a

            general request  for Brady material.   The orders accordingly
                                 _____

                              
          ____________________

               9As  New  Hampshire law  apparently  affords  no remedy  for
          withholding exculpatory evidence, this claim is subject to   1983
          analysis.   See  also Belcher  v. Paine,  612 A.2d  1318, 1322-23
                      ___  ____ _______     _____
          (N.H. 1992)  (applying Imbler doctrine  to malicious  prosecution
                                 ______
          claim under state law.)

                                         -11-
                                          11

            left the  prosecutors with something more  than a ministerial

            function to perform.  The prosecutors were required to deter-

            mine what evidence in  their possession was "exculpatory" and

            subject to  disclosure.10  Cf.   Buckley v. Fitzsimmons,     
                                       ___   _______    ___________  ____

            U.S.       ,  113 S.  Ct. 2606, 2616  (1993) (when prosecutor
                  _____

            evaluates  evidence and  interviews witnesses  in preparation

            for  trial, he functions within  the scope of absolute immun-

            ity).  Imbler expressly recognized that requiring prosecutors
                   ______

            to defend     in section 1983 actions    decisions concerning

            the  "materiality of  evidence  not revealed  to the  defense

            could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor

            responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials."

            Imbler, 424 U.S. at 425-26.  The view expressed in the Imbler
            ______                                                 ______

                              
          ____________________

               10We recognize that N.H.  Rev. Stat. Ann.   631-A:6,  on its
          face,  bans evidence of prior sexual activity by a prosecutrix in
          a  rape case:    "Prior consensual  sexual  activity between  the
          victim and any person other than the actor shall  not be admitted
          into  evidence in any prosecution  under this chapter."  However,
          the New Hampshire Supreme Court has read a constitutional limita-
          tion into this statutory  ban in statutory rape  cases, so as  to
          preserve  the statute  from  infirmity to  constitutional attack.
          Howard, 121 N.H. at 61 (state constitution requires that the jury
          ______
          be informed  of prior sexual  experience of child  prosecutrix in
          statutory rape case,  since jury otherwise  could infer that  the
          prosecutrix must have gained her knowledge of sexual anatomy only
          through the alleged sexual  assault).  Whether and when  to admit
          such evidence  rests within  the discretion  of the trial  court.
          State v. Cox, 575 A.2d 1320, 1322-23 (N.H. 1990) (upholding trial
          _____    ___
          court's exercise  of  discretion admitting  Howard-type  evidence
                                                      ______
          only during  cross-examination  of  prosecutrix).    Thus,  these
          prosecutors  retained  some discretion,  at least,  in evaluating
                                 ____
          whether  the  putative  prior attacks  against  Misty constituted
          Brady evidence.  We do not suggest, of  course, that the prosecu-
          _____
          tors were free to disregard the state court disclosure order, nor
          that  there were no alternative means of avoiding a violation, as
          by submitting the evidence for in camera review.
                                         __ ______

                                         -12-
                                          12

            dissent    that absolute  immunity should attach only  if the

            prosecutor  has disclosed all  facts which cast  doubt on the

            State's evidence    was rejected  by the Imbler Court because
                                                     ______

            such a  requirement  would  interfere  "with  the  legitimate
                                                               __________

            exercise of prosecutorial  discretion."  Id. at  432.  Imbler
            ________ __ _____________  __________    ___           ______

            thus implicitly acknowledged  that prosecutors retain discre-
                                                                  _______

            tion  to determine  what evidence  is to  be  disclosed under
            ____

            Brady and  that absolute immunity attaches  to their exercise
            _____

            of discretion. 

                      The further allegation  that these prosecutors  re-

            peatedly misled  the trial  court in order  to conceal  their

            alleged  misconduct does  not defeat  absolute immunity.   In

            Burns v.  Reed, 500 U.S. 478,  489-90, 111 S.  Ct. 1934, 1941
            _____     ____

            (1991),  the Court sustained  absolute prosecutorial immunity

            for "making  false or defamatory statements  in judicial pro-

            ceedings  (at least so long as the statements were related to

            the proceeding), and also  for eliciting false and defamatory

            testimony from witnesses."  Imbler stated that it is "'better
                                        ______

            to leave  unredressed the  wrongs done by  dishonest officers

            than to  subject those who try  to do their duty  to the con-
                                               __ _____ ____

            stant dread  of retaliation.'"  See Imbler,  424 U.S.  at 428
                                            ___ ______

            (quoting Gregoire  v. Biddle,  177  F.2d 579,  581 (2nd  Cir.
                     ________     ______

            1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949 (1950)).11 
                   _____ ______

                              
          ____________________

               11Reid counters with Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d  424 (10th
                                    ________    ______
          Cir. 1985) (holding  that prosecutor is not entitled  to absolute
          immunity for filing false  affidavit in bar disciplinary proceed-

                                         -13-
                                          13

                      Nor  was  absolute immunity  forfeited  because the

            prosecutors  continued to  withhold the  exculpatory evidence

            long after  Reid's conviction.12   Imbler specifically  noted
                                               ______

            that  absolute prosecutorial immunity is an essential guaran-

            tee that  reviewing courts focus exclusively  on the fairness

            of the underlying trial, not upon any collateral consequences

            a reversal might portend for the prosecutor.  Id. at 427; cf.
                                                          ___         ___

            Patterson  v. Von Riesen, 999 F.2d 1235, 1238 (8th Cir. 1993)
            _________     __________

            ("The Supreme Court has  created no requirement that prosecu-

            tors reveal  their trial mistakes to  maintain their absolute

            immunity . . . .").13   

                              
          ____________________

          ing to cover  up trial  misconduct), and Briggs  v. Goodwin,  569
                                                   ______     _______
          F.2d  10  (D.C. Cir.  1977), cert.  denied,  437 U.S.  904 (1978)
                                       _____  ______
          (holding prosecutor not entitled  to absolute immunity for alleg-
          edly  perjuring  himself  during grand  jury  proceedings,  since
          prosecutor  was then  acting in  investigative capacity).   These
          cases are inapposite, as  they involved prosecutors who  were not
          acting as
          advocates  for the State.   Moreover, Martinez  was reversed, see
                                                ________                ___
          Martinez, 778 F.2d 553, 555-56 (10th Cir. 1985), as to the  point
          ________
          relied on  by Reid, vacated by  the Court, Tyus  v. Martinez, 475
                                                     ____     ________
          U.S. 1138 (1986), and later dismissed as moot, Martinez, 800 F.2d
                                                         ________
          230 (10th  Cir. 1986).   Finally, Briggs  is no longer  viable in
                                            ______
          light  of Briscoe v. LaHue,  460 U.S. 325  (1983) (all witnesses,
                    _______    _____
          including those  who  give  perjured  testimony,  are  absolutely
          immune from civil suit under   1983).  See Briggs v. Goodwin, 712
                                                 ___ ______    _______
          F.2d  1444 (D.C. Cir. 1983),  cert. denied, 464  U.S. 1040 (1984)
                                        _____ ______
          (prosecutor who gives perjured  testimony is entitled to absolute
          immunity under Briscoe but not Imbler). 
                         _______         ______

               12The first  amended complaint  alleged that  these prosecu-
          tors,  unlike  the prosecutor  in  Imbler, did  not  disgorge the
                                             ______
          exculpatory  evidence  until  more than  a  year  after  Reid was
          convicted. 

               13We also reject the contention that their conduct following
          Reid's conviction is  actionable under Houston v. Partee,  758 F.
                                                 _______    ______
          Supp. 1228,  1230-31 (N.D.  Ill. 1991) (holding  that prosecutors

                                         -14-
                                          14

                      Reid  further  contends  that  the  district  court

            failed  to address his claim against the prosecutors in their

            official capacities.   In  order to  prevail on  an "official
            ________ __________

            capacity" claim, Reid would have to show that the  particular

            governmental entity had an unconstitutional custom or policy,

            Monell v. New  York City  Dep't. of Social  Servs., 436  U.S.
            ______    ________________________________________

            658,  690 (1978),  which its  representatives were  executing

            with  at least  the  tacit approval  of governmental  policy-

            makers.  Id. at 691 ("customs and usages" of local government
                     ___

            may satisfy Monell requirement).  Reid insists that he plead-
                        ______

            ed actionable claims  against the County  Prosecutor's office

            and the County of Hillsborough by alleging that the defendant

            prosecutors, themselves  policymaking officials, continuously

            refused to produce the exculpatory evidence the court ordered

                              
          ____________________

          are not entitled to absolute immunity for suppressing exculpatory
          evidence first acquired  after   1983 plaintiffs' murder  convic-
                   _____ ________  _____
          tions), aff'd, 978 F.2d 362 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.
                  _____                                _____ ______
          Ct.  1647  (1993).   The  Houston  plaintiffs were  convicted  of
                                    _______
          shooting  a  gang  member.   While  their  appeals  were pending,
          another gang member, in the context of a different investigation,
          informed  the  prosecutor  as to  the  identities  of  the actual
          killers.Theprosecutor, nolongerrepresentingtheState inplaintiffs'
          criminal appeals,  did not  disclose this information  to defense
          counsel.   A  few years  after the  convictions were  affirmed on
          appeal,  the real killers  confessed.  The  three prosecutors who
          had  been aware of the  evidence neither disclosed  it to defense
          counsel nor to the court, and plaintiffs were unjustly imprisoned
          for several more years.  
                 Houston stressed that absolute  immunity did not attach to
                 _______
          the prosecutors'  conduct because  they acquired the  evidence in
          their  investigative  capacity, at  a  time  when they  were  not
                 _____________  ________
          representing the  State in the post-conviction  proceedings.  See
                                                                        ___
          978 F.2d at 366-67.  Reid has not alleged that  these prosecutors
          did  not represent the State  after his conviction.   Indeed, the
          record suggests otherwise. 

                                         -15-
                                          15

            disclosed.          We do not reach the question whether Reid

            alleged the requisite custom  or practice under Monell, since
                                                            ______

            he  has  not  challenged  the  magistrate-judge's  report and

            recommendation  on this  basis.  See  Henley Drilling  Co. v.
                                             ___  ____________________

            McGee,  36 F.3d 143, 150  (1st Cir. 1994)  (citing Park Motor
            _____                                              __________

            Mart Inc. v.  Ford Motor  Co., 616  F.2d 603,  605 (1st  Cir.
            _________     _______________

            1980) ("A party may file objections within ten days or he may

            not, as he chooses, but  he shall do so if he  wishes further

            appellate consideration.")).  Accordingly, all claims against

            the prosecutors were properly dismissed.

            B.   The Claims Against the Police Officers
            B.   The Claims Against the Police Officers
                 ______________________________________

                      After  the false  arrest  claims  were  allowed  to

            proceed, the  police defendants  contended that  the district

            court had dismissed, as frivolous,  the claim that the police

            deprived Reid  of due  process  of law  and a  fair trial  by

            concealing exculpatory evidence.  Unable to obtain clarifica-

            tion  of the  district  court dismissal  order, Reid  pursued

            further  discovery in  an  attempt to  establish each  police

            defendant's awareness  of the exculpatory evidence and wheth-

            er,  and when, the officers  had disclosed what  they knew to

            one  another and  to  the prosecutors.    The district  court

            ultimately permitted the  third amended complaint,  including

            the false  arrest claims  and the  concealment claims,  to be

            filed against the police defendants.  

                 (i)  The Third Amended Complaint
                 (i)  The Third Amended Complaint
                      ___________________________

                                         -16-
                                          16

                      On February 14, 1992, the  magistrate judge ordered

            the  police defendants to  respond to  Reid's interrogatories

            and requests for production  of documents.  On June  10, Reid

            filed a  motion to  compel further responses  to interrogato-

            ries, followed  by motions to join  additional defendants and

            for permission to file  the third amended complaint alleging,

            inter  alia, that  the police  defendants conspired  with the
            _____  ____

            prosecutors to conceal the  exculpatory evidence.  There fol-

            lowed, in July 1992, another motion to compel production.  

                      Prior to any disposition  of Reid's June 10 motions

            to  compel responses to interrogatories and for leave to file

            the third amended complaint,  the police defendants moved for

            summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds based on their

            contention that other evidence in their possession was suffi-

            cient  to establish  probable  cause for  Reid's arrest  even

            assuming  they had  withheld  the exculpatory  evidence.   In

            addition, Sergeant  Simmons  submitted an  affidavit  denying

            that  he had withheld police  reports relating to  Misty.  On

            August 27, 1992,  Reid requested further  time to respond  to

            the police  defendants' motion for summary  judgment, because

            he was unable to do so  until the district court ruled on his

            discovery requests.14 

                              
          ____________________

               14Although Sergeant Simmons made reference to earlier police
          reports relating to Misty, he did not mention the DCYS file.  Nor
          is  it  clear whether  the police  defendants  were privy  to its
          contents prior to Reid's arrest or conviction.

                                         -17-
                                          17

                      In November, 1992,  the case  was transferred  from

            Rhode Island to  New Hampshire and reassigned to  a different

            district judge.   On  December 14,  the newly  assigned judge

            allowed Reid until January 11, 1993, to respond to the police

            defendants' motion for summary judgment.  At  the same  time,

            the court  directed that  Reid's motions to  compel discovery

            and to  substitute the third amended  complaint be considered

            "withdrawn"  from  the  docket,  without prejudice  to  their

            renewal  by January 4, 1993.  Reid renewed each motion within

            the deadline and again  sought additional time to  respond to

            the motion for summary judgment.

                      On  January 22,  1993, the  district  court allowed

            Reid  seven  days to  respond in  writing  to the  motion for

            summary judgment.  The court  denied Reid's motion to substi-

            tute  the third  amended  complaint insofar  as it  would add

            claims  against prosecutors Wageling  and McDonough for mali-

            cious  prosecution, denial of  due process  of law  and false

            imprisonment caused by the failure to disclose the exculpato-

            ry evidence, and against  Attorney Renfro for conspiring with

            the  prosecutors to  conceal  the  exculpatory evidence  from

            Reid.    At the  same time,  the  court allowed  an amendment

            adding  a  separate malicious  prosecution claim  against all

            police  defendants and  restating the  claim that  the police

            defendants had violated Reid's constitutional rights by  con-

            tinuously  withholding the exculpatory evidence.  Lastly, the

                                         -18-
                                          18

            district  court  rejected  Reid's  motion to  compel  further

            discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), on the ground that the

            discovery sought was not  substantially related to the police

            defendants' qualified immunity claims.  

                      On  February 5,  1993, the  district  court granted

            summary judgment for all police defendants.  Relying primari-

            ly on  reports of  the police investigation  preceding Reid's

            arrest, the  court reasoned  that the police  defendants were

            entitled to qualified immunity because an objectively reason-

            able police officer, based on all the evidence, including the

            exculpatory  information withheld until August of 1988, none-

            theless could have believed that  there was probable cause to

            arrest Reid for sexually  assaulting Misty, even assuming the

            police  defendants  concealed  the   exculpatory  evidence.15

            The district court did  not mention the malicious prosecution

            claims  relating to the alleged  failure of the police defen-

            dants  to disclose  the  exculpatory evidence,  but concluded

            that  "when probable  cause exists notwithstanding  the exis-

            tence  of  some exculpatory  evidence,  no  violation of  the

            Fourth Amendment occurs and  the shield of qualified immunity
                                                       _________ ________

                              
          ____________________

               15The district  court did not have  the exculpatory evidence
          when it ruled on  either the motion  for summary judgment or  the
          motion for reconsideration.  Those materials were in the district
          court, however, for a  single day    February 10    after summary
                                                              _____
          judgment  had been entered against Reid and before the motion for
                                                      ______
          reconsideration was filed.  Nor did the court have the opportuni-
          ty  to consider Reid's pro se memorandum in opposition to summary
          judgment before granting summary  judgment against him, though it
          did so prior to ruling on the motion for reconsideration.  

                                         -19-
                                          19

            remains viable."  (emphasis added).   Final judgment  was en-

            tered dismissing all claims  against the police defendants on

            February 8. 

                      On February 10,  the district court  clerk received

            and  docketed  Reid's timely  opposition  to  the motion  for
                                  ______

            summary  judgment, together  with  his supporting  affidavit,

            exhibits,  memorandum, and  statement of  contested and  unc-

            ontested  facts.16   The  supporting  materials  included the

            1985 and 1986 police reports, which recorded prior complaints

            of  sexual assaults against Misty, as well as portions of the

            DCYS reports describing relevant family history.  

                      The DCYS  reports described how Misty  and her sis-

            ter,  Wendy, had been physically abused by their mother.  The

            allegations were made by  Wendy, and by a former  roommate of
                                      _____

            Misty's  mother.   The  reports related  that Misty's  mother

            engaged  in  sexual intercourse  in  Misty's  presence.   The

            former roommate  described how she had  found Misty fellating

            her four-year-old  son on  April 17,  1985.   Misty's  mother

                              
          ____________________

               16Weekends, legal holidays,  and January 22     the date  of
          the denial of the motion to  compel    should have been  excluded
          from the  running of the  seven-day filing  period.  See  Fed. R.
                                                               ___
          Civ. P. 6(a).   Rule  6(e) further  required that  three days  be
          added to the prescribed response period since the court order had
          been mailed to Reid.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e).   Thus, he had until
          February 5,  1993, to respond.  Reid  seasonably filed opposition
          to  the motion  for summary  judgment by  depositing it  with the
          prison warden  on February 5.  See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
                                         ___ _______    ____
          275 (1988) (holding that filing periods  for prisoners are deter-
          mined when  submitted to prison  warden) (analogous  FRAP 4  con-
          text); Oliver v. Commissioner  of Massachusetts Dep't. of Correc-
                 ______    ________________________________________________
          tions, 30 F.3d 270, 272 (1st Cir. 1994) (same).
          _____

                                         -20-
                                          20

            denied  the allegations  and  accused Wendy  of making  false

            charges in order  to force  the mother into  allowing her  to

            move in with  a boyfriend,  and because Wendy  was under  the

            influence of drugs. 

                      The DCYS reports further  indicated that Wendy  had

            refused to return to  her mother's residence for a  period of

            two  weeks, and  that  the Manchester  Police had  attempted,

            without  success, to find Wendy and return her to her mother.

            Wendy requested that she be placed in protective custody, but

            that her request  was denied  "due to lack  of concrete  evi-

            dence."   Later, after  joint  counseling, Wendy  voluntarily

            returned home.  Finally, the DCYS reports reflect that during

            1985    the year  before Reid's arrest    Misty's  mother was

            under investigation for child abuse and neglect.  

                      Reid  contended  that  these materials  established

            that both Misty and  her mother were unreliable and  that the

            mother had an ulterior motive for fabricating charges against

            Reid since she had  been the subject of a  DCYS investigation

            for abuse and neglect  based on Wendy's allegations  that the

            mother repeatedly had beaten her and Misty.17  

                              
          ____________________

               17Reid contended further that  the police defendants had not
          established their  entitlement to  summary judgment on  his claim
          that they  withheld the exculpatory evidence.  The Reid affidavit
          attested  that Sergeant  Simmons had  never disclosed     at  the
          probable  cause  hearing     his  prior reports  of  contact with
          Misty,  nor "any other information  which would lead  a person to
          [believe]  that the allegation made by the complainant wasn't the
          first such allegation made by her." 

                                         -21-
                                          21

                      Although  Reid's  timely opposition  and supporting

            materials  were received  and  docketed on  February 10,  the

            police reports and the DCYS reports were returned to Reid the

            same day  by the clerk, pursuant to  Local Rule 14 which pro-

            vides  that the  clerk is  not required  to retain  discovery

            materials.  On February 22, Reid moved for reconsideration of

            the summary judgment order entered February 8.18  Reconsider-

            ation was summarily denied on May 10, 1993, though the excul-

            patory evidence was not before the court.  The district court

            noted, however, that it  had considered Reid's pro  se objec-
                                                           ___  __

            tion and memorandum  in opposition to the motion  for summary

            judgment, which described some  of the exculpatory  evidence.

            Reid appealed.

                      We  review  the  summary judgment  order  de  novo,
                                                                __  ____

            Lallemand v. University of Rhode Island, 9 F.3d 214, 215 (1st
            _________    __________________________

            Cir. 1993),  the Rule  56(f) order  for abuse of  discretion,

            Mattoon v. City of Pittsfield, 980 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1992),
            _______    __________________

            and the  order denying  reconsideration for abuse  of discre-

            tion,  Desenne  v. Jamestown Boatyard,  Inc., 968 F.2d  1388,
                   _______     _________________________

            1392 (1st Cir. 1992).  

                      The  district  court  prematurely  granted  summary

            judgment on the claims that Reid was arrested without  proba-

                              
          ____________________

               18The motion for reconsideration, accompanied by  a support-
          ing  affidavit and memorandum, was served  on February 16, within
          ten  days of the entry of the district court judgment on February
          8, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

                                         -22-
                                          22

            ble cause and that the police failed to disclose the exculpa-

            tory  impeachment  evidence to  the  prosecutors.   As  noted

            above, see note 8  supra, a procedural due process  claim may
                   ___         _____

            not be  redressed under section 1983 where  an adequate state

            remedy exists.  Perez-Ruiz v.  Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42
                            __________     ______________

            (1st Cir. 1994); Smith  v. Massachusetts Dept. of Correction,
                             _____     _________________________________

            936 F.2d 1390, 1402 (1st Cir. 1991); Torres v. Superintendent
                                                 ______    ______________

            of Police,  893 F.2d  404, 410  (1st Cir.  1990).  Since  New
            _________

            Hampshire  recognizes the common-law  torts of  false arrest,

            Hickox v. Morin, 272 A.2d 321, 323 (N.H. 1970), and malicious
            ______    _____

            prosecution, Stock v. Byers, 424 A.2d 1122, 1123 (N.H. 1980),
                         _____    _____

            the  claim  that Reid  was  arrested  without probable  cause

            should  have  been addressed  under  New  Hampshire law,  not

            section  1983.   Richardson v.  Chevrefils, 552  A.2d 89,  92
                             __________     __________

            (N.H. 1988); Opinion of the Justices, 493 A.2d  1189-90 (N.H.
                         _______________________

            1985);  Merrill v. Manchester, 332  A.2d 378, 383 (N.H. 1974)
                    _______    __________

            (abrogating doctrine  of municipal immunity);  see also  N.H.
                                                           ___ ____

            Rev. Stat. Ann.   491:24.  On the other hand, the  allegation

            that the  police withheld  the exculpatory evidence  from the

            prosecutors  does not  state  an actionable  claim under  New

            Hampshire common law and thus  must be analyzed under federal

            law in accordance with section 1983 jurisprudence.  See Walk-
                                                                ___ _____

            er  v. City of  New York, 974  F.2d 293, 300  (2d Cir. 1992),
            __     _________________

            cert. denied, 113 S.  Ct. 1387 (1993), and cert.  denied, 113
            ____  ______                               _____  ______

            S.  Ct. 1412 (1993); Henderson v. Fisher, 631 F.2d 1115, 1119
                                 _________    ______

                                         -23-
                                          23

            (3d Cir. 1980) (per  curiam); Taylor v. Hansen, 731  F. Supp.
                                          ______    ______

            72, 78 (N.D.N.Y. 1990); Carter v. Harrison, 612 F. Supp. 749,
                                    ______    ________

            758 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). 

                      Federal  Rule of  Civil Procedure 56(f)  provides a

            safety valve for claimants genuinely  in need of further time

            to marshal "facts, essential  to justify [their] opposition .

            .  . to a summary judgment motion."   Mattoon, 980 F.2d at 7;
                                                  _______

            see Morrissey v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, No. 94-2220,
            ___ _________    ______________________________

            slip op. at 17-20  (1st Cir. 1995) (further discovery  sought

            under  Rule 56(f) must be  such as could  establish a triable

            issue).  The Rule 56(f) motion must "(1) articulate a plausi-

            ble basis  for the  belief that discoverable  materials exist

            which  would raise  a trialworthy  issue and  (2) demonstrate

            good cause for failure  to have conducted discovery earlier."

            Id.  We  have held that  where the movant  satisfies the  re-
            __

            quirements  of Rule  56(f), "a  strong presumption  arises in

            favor  of relief."   Resolution Trust  Corp. v.  North Bridge
                                 _______________________     ____________

            Assoc., 22 F.3d 1198, 1203 (1st Cir. 1994).  
            ______

                      Reid made a  timely motion to  defer ruling on  the

            summary  judgment motion,  supported by  an affidavit  suffi-

            ciently  describing the  requested discovery.   Prior  to the

            Rule 56(f) motion, moreover, the magistrate judge had ordered

            the police defendants to respond to interrogatories previous-

            ly  filed by Reid.  The police defendants have never complied

            with  the order  to respond  to these  interrogatories.   The

                                         -24-
                                          24

            unanswered interrogatories directly concern the critical DCYS

            reports  on Misty, Wendy and their mother, and when the vari-

            ous police defendants became aware of these reports. 

                      The  requested  discovery was  essential  to Reid's

            claims against  the police  defendants.  When  the individual

            police  defendants learned  of  the  exculpatory evidence  is

            relevant to (1) whether  the individual defendants reasonably

            could have believed there was  probable cause to arrest  Reid

            (false  arrest  claim) and  (2)  whether  they initiated  the

            criminal prosecution knowing that probable cause was  lacking

            (malicious prosecution claim).  When the exculpatory evidence

            was transmitted to the prosecutors is relevant to determining

            (3) whether  the individual defendants attempted  to withhold

            Brady  material from  the prosecutors  (section 1983  claim).
            _____

            The unanswered interrogatories  were pertinent  to all  these

            matters.    As the  discovery sought  is  such that  it could

            arguably generate  a trialworthy  issue of material  fact, we

            must determine  whether Reid  complied with the  other stric-

            tures of Rule 56(f).

                      Given the  direct police involvement in  the bitter

            dispute  between Wendy  and her  mother, and  the two  police

            reports relating prior  sexual abuse of  Misty, it cannot  be

            considered  implausible  in the  least  that  the police  had

            access to the exculpatory information prior to Reid's arrest.
            ______

            The  requested  information was  within  the  control of  the

                                         -25-
                                          25

            police defendants, a factor which weighs  heavily in favor of

            relief under Rule  56(f).   North Bridge Assoc.,  22 F.3d  at
                                        ___________________

            1208 (reversing  denial of Rule 56(f)  motion).  Furthermore,

            Reid  not only sought discovery  in a timely  manner, but ob-

            tained  a  court order  requiring  the  police defendants  to

            respond to his interrogatories.   See Mattoon, 980 F.2d  at 7
                                              ___ _______

            (failure of movant to pursue discovery with diligence permits

            denial  of Rule 56(f) motion).  Finally, the Reid motion, af-

            fidavit and  interrogatories plainly identified  the informa-

            tion  requested.   See  Murphy  v.  Timberlane Regional  Sch.
                               ___  ______      _________________________

            Dist., 22  F.3d 1186,  1197 (1st Cir.)  (upholding denial  of
            _____

            Rule 56(f) motion where movant failed to identify information

            sought and to submit supporting affidavit), cert. denied, 115
                                                        _____ ______

            S.  Ct. 489 (1994); Nestor  Colon Medina &  Sucesors, Inc. v.
                                ______________________________________

            Custodio, 964 F.2d 32,  39 (1st Cir. 1992) (finding  abuse of
            ________

            discretion  in denying  portion  of Rule  56(f) motion  which

            clearly  related facts  which  would generate  a  trialworthy

            issue).  

                      In these circumstances Reid was entitled to receive

            responses to  the  unanswered interrogatories  as  previously

            ordered by the court,  and the additional discovery requested

            in the Rule 56(f) motion.  See generally Farmer v. Brennan,  
                                       ___ _________ ______    _______  _

             U.S.    , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1985 (1994) (remanding Rule 56(f)
                  ___

            ruling for  reconsideration in light of  Court's holding that

            the central issue governing  plaintiff's claim was when state

                                         -26-
                                          26

            officials actually acquired certain information).  On remand,

            therefore,  Reid  should  be  allowed  to conduct  reasonable

            further discovery relating to  the state-law and section 1983

            claims against the police defendants. 

            C.   The Conspiracy Claim Against Defense Counsel
            C.   The Conspiracy Claim Against Defense Counsel
                 ____________________________________________

                      Lastly, Reid challenges the denial of his motion to

            amend the third  amended complaint by  adding the claim  that

            Attorney Renfro conspired with the prosecutors to conceal the

            exculpatory  evidence.   We review  for abuse  of discretion.

            Correa-Martinez v.  Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d  49, 59 (1st
            _______________     __________________

            Cir. 1990).   "Where an  amendment would be  futile or  would

            serve no  legitimate purpose,  the district court  should not

            needlessly prolong matters."  Id.  
                                          ___

                      The  allegation  that  Renfro  saw  the exculpatory

            evidence,  yet did not bring  it to Reid's  attention, is too

            conclusory to state a  viable conspiracy claim.  See  Hunt v.
                                                             ___  ____

            Bennett,  17 F.3d  1263,  1268 (10th  Cir.) (allegation  that
            _______

            attorney  provided incompetent  defense held  insufficient to

            generate triable issue on  conspiracy charge), cert.  denied,
                                                           _____  ______

            115 S. Ct. 107 (1994).  The conclusory allegation that Renfro

            had  access  to the  prosecution's  file  is insufficient  to

            generate a  trialworthy issue  as  to whether  he had  actual

            knowledge  of the  exculpatory  evidence, since  there is  no

            allegation that  the prosecution materials  made available to

            Renfro included  the exculpatory  material.  See  Slotnick v.
                                                         ___  ________

                                         -27-
                                          27

            Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 165-66 (1st Cir. 1980) (per curiam).
            _________

            Accordingly, we conclude that the refusal to allow yet anoth-

            er amendment to  the complaint  at the present  time did  not

            constitute an abuse  of discretion under  the Correa-Martinez
                                                          _______________

            standard.19

                                         III
                                         III

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION
                                      __________

                      For the  foregoing reasons,  we affirm the  summary

            judgment  dismissing the claims  against prosecutors Wageling

            and  McDonough and  the  conspiracy  claim against  defendant

            Renfro.    We vacate  the judgment  entered  in favor  of the

            police defendants,  Simmons, Gilman,  Ahern and Paul,  on the

            false arrest, malicious prosecution, and due process  claims,

            and  remand  all claims  against  the  police defendants  for

            further proceedings,  including  reasonable discovery.    The
                                                                      ___

            police defendants shall bear  two-thirds of appellant's costs
            ______ __________ _____ ____  __________ __ ___________ _____

            on  appeal; all other costs are to  be borne by the party who
            __  ______  ___ _____ _____ ___ __  __ _____ __ ___ _____ ___

            incurred them.
            ________ ____

                      So ordered.
                      So ordered.
                      __ _______

                              
          ____________________

               19We note, nonetheless, that should further discovery result
          in new evidence relating to the nature and timing of the prosecu-
          tors'  and  defense  counsel's  acquisition  of  the  exculpatory
          evidence, we  are confident that  a responsive proposal  to amend
          the claim against Renfro  would be accorded due  consideration in
          light of  the appropriate equitable  criteria.  See  Quaker State
                                                          ___  ____________
          Oil  Refining v. Garrity Oil  Co., 884 F.2d  1510, 1517 (1st Cir.
          _____________    ________________
          1989).

                                         -28-
                                          28