Court Opinion

ID: 2964657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:02.903093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.459938
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-1490

                               JUAN A. BERDEC A-P REZ,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                              JOS  ZAYAS-GREEN, ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                              _________________________

               Jose  R.  Perez-Hernandez and  Pierluisi &  Mayol-Bianchi on
               _________________________      __________________________
          brief for appellants.
               Ramonita Dieppa-Gonz lez  and  Puerto Rico  Legal  Services,
               ________________________       _____________________________
          Inc. on brief for appellee.
          ____

                              _________________________

                                    April 16, 1997
                              _________________________

                    SELYA,  Circuit  Judge.    Plaintiff-appellee  Juan  A.
                    SELYA,  Circuit  Judge.
                            ______________

          Berdec a-P rez, an accountant, has worked for the Municipality of

          Barranquitas from 1978 to the present time.  In the November 1992

          elections, the New Progressive Party seized the reins of power in

          the municipal government.   Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was

          transferred  to  a different  post  (though  his salary  remained

          intact).    In early  1994, however,  the plaintiff's  salary was

          slashed  sharply.   After unsuccessfully  pursuing administrative

          remedies, he invoked  42 U.S.C.    1983 (1994) and  sued two  top

          municipal  officials.   He  alleged, inter  alia, that,  although
                                               _____  ____

          political affiliation  was not a  suitable criterion for  the job

          that  he  held,  the  defendants  nonetheless  cut  his   pay  in

          retaliation  for his  active  support of  the Popular  Democratic

          Party.

                    In  due   course,  the  defendants  moved   for  brevis
                                                                     ______

          disposition on the  ground that  they were  at least  qualifiedly

          immune  from the plaintiff's suit  for damages.   On February 26,

          1996,  the  district court  denied  their  motion in  a  cryptic,

          single-sentence  order.    The  defendants  then  prosecuted this

          interlocutory appeal.

                    We need not tarry.   To the extent that  the appellants

          claim  that  their actions  are  insulated  from First  Amendment

          scrutiny   as  a  matter  of  law  because  a  reduction  in  the

          plaintiff's salary was  necessitated by the Uniform  Compensation

          Act,  P.R. Laws  Ann. tit.  3,    760 et  seq. (1988  Supp.), the
                                                __  ____

          regulations  thereunder, and  the  personnel regulations  of  the

                                          2

          Municipality of Barranquitas, they are wrong   and they are wrong

          under federal law  that was clearly established  when they acted.

          See, e.g.,  Rosario-Torres v. Hernandez-Colon, 889  F.2d 314, 318
          ___  ____   ______________    _______________

          (1st Cir. 1989) (en  banc); Santiago-Negron v. Castro-Davila, 865
                                      _______________    _____________

          F.2d 431, 433-34 (1st  Cir. 1989); Roure v. Hernandez  Colon, 824
                                             _____    ________________

          F.2d 139,  141-43 (1st Cir.  1987) (per curiam).   To  the extent

          that the appellants claim  that their actions are  insulated from

          First Amendment scrutiny as  a matter of fact because  their only

          intention was to  obey the law,  the record presents an  issue of

          fact as to their intent   an issue of the type that can no longer

          be resolved on interlocutory  appeal.  See Johnson v.  Jones, 115
                                                 ___ _______     _____

          S. Ct.  2151, 2156 (1995);  Santiago-Mateo v.  Cordero, ___  F.3d
                                      ______________     _______

          ___,  ___ (1st Cir. 1997) [No. 96-1688,  slip op. at 3-5]; Stella
                                                                     ______

          v.  Kelley, 63  F.3d 71,  75 (1st  Cir. 1995).   Either  way, the
              ______

          instant appeal is an exercise in futility.1

                    Appeal dismissed.
                    Appeal dismissed.
                    ________________

                              
          ____________________

               1The lack of specific findings by the lower court, while not
          fatal to its ruling on summary judgment, see Domegan v. Fair, 859
                                                   ___ _______    ____
          F.2d  1059, 1065-66  (1st Cir.  1988), complicates  the appellate
          task.  Especially  in light of the  jurisdictional questions that
          attend the  denial of summary judgment  motions raising qualified
          immunity  defenses,  we  urge  the  district  courts,  either  by
          rescripts or bench decisions, to give us some indication of their
          reasoning.

                                          3