Court Opinion

ID: 2964077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:04.140582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:41.457708
License: Public Domain

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          April 22, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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