Court Opinion

ID: 2962252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:55:19.775598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:18.424539
License: Public Domain

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        December 15, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-