Parrilla-Burgos v. Hernandez-Rivera
1997 WL 114511, 108 F.3d 445 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a police officer's actions to be 'under color of state law' for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the officer must purpose to act in an official capacity or exercise official responsibilities, and not merely engage in private violence, even if using official equipment or claiming official status, particularly when the victim clearly perceives the confrontation as personal.
Facts:
- On January 2, 1989, Lionel Galletti Roque was drinking at Carlos' Place in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, with friends.
- Felix Hernandez-Rivera, an officer of the Puerto Rico Police Department who was on medical leave, arrived at the bar not in uniform but carrying his police identification and service revolver.
- Hernandez approached Galletti’s group, exchanged words and hostile glances, stated, 'I’m a cop,' and slapped Galletti's friend Ity.
- The bar owner asked Hernandez to leave, but Hernandez told him not to meddle, identified himself to the crowd as a police officer 'to establish the peace and order,' and displayed his police identification.
- As Hernandez was leaving, hostilities resumed between his and Galletti's friends, leading Galletti to tell Hernandez, 'Well, you leave the gun, and me and you will have it out, outside.'
- Hernandez accepted the challenge, stating, 'I don't need a gun to fight you. Come on, step outside,' and both parties went outside.
- Outside, Hernandez threw a beer can at Galletti, and when Galletti pushed Hernandez, Hernandez took out his service revolver and fired six shots, killing Galletti.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 27, 1989, Galletti's survivors (plaintiffs) brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Felix Hernandez-Rivera and several supervising officers (defendants) in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
- On August 30, 1991, supervisory defendant Carlos López Feliciano filed a motion for summary judgment, joined by other supervisory defendants, arguing Hernandez was not acting under color of state law.
- On November 1, 1991, District Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- On March 31, 1992, supervisory defendant López Feliciano filed a motion for reconsideration, and other supervisory defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to allege supervisory liability.
- These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Jesús Antonio Castellanos for a report and recommendation.
- On April 29, 1994, Magistrate Castellanos recommended denying the reconsideration motion and most motions to dismiss, but recommended granting motions to dismiss for supervisory defendants Luis Carrillo and José Lucena.
- On March 16, 1995, District Judge Salvador E. Casellas adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, ending Carrillo and Lucena's involvement.
- On June 6, 1995, supervisory defendant López Feliciano, joined by the remaining supervisory defendants, filed a motion for the district court to reconsider its summary judgment decision in light of a recent First Circuit decision, Martinez v. Colon.
- On November 29, 1995, District Judge Salvador E. Casellas vacated the November 1, 1991 order and dismissed the case, granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that Hernandez was not acting under color of state law.
- The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's use of a service weapon and assertions of official status during a personal altercation constitute action 'under color of state law' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the interaction culminates in a mutually agreed-upon private fight?
Opinions:
Majority - DiClerico, District Judge
No, a police officer's use of a service weapon and assertions of official status during a personal altercation does not constitute action 'under color of state law' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the interaction culminates in a mutually agreed-upon private fight. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the 'under color of state law' inquiry turns on the 'nature and circumstances of the officer’s conduct and the relationship of that conduct to the performance of his official duties,' with the 'key determinant' being whether the actor 'purposes to act in an official capacity or to exercise official responsibilities pursuant to state law.' While Hernandez made some pretense of official action by displaying his identification and stating he was 'keeping the peace,' his repeated assertions that he could 'look dirty' at Galletti 'because I’m a cop' fell clearly outside his official capacity. Critically, any pretense of official action ended when Galletti explicitly invited Hernandez to a private brawl, and Hernandez accepted. Galletti's invitation to fight 'belied' any possibility that he was intimidated by Hernandez's claims of official status, demonstrating that he perceived the confrontation as personal rather than an exercise of official power. Thus, Hernandez was engaged in a 'purely personal pursuit of private violence,' precluding Section 1983 liability.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'under color of state law' requirement for Section 1983 claims, particularly concerning off-duty police officers. It establishes that merely possessing official equipment (like a service weapon) or making claims of official status is insufficient to trigger state action if the totality of the circumstances reveals a purely personal dispute. The ruling emphasizes the importance of the officer's intent to act officially versus engaging in private misconduct and considers the victim's perception of the encounter. This decision limits the scope of Section 1983 liability for private acts by public officials, reinforcing that the law targets the abuse of government-granted power, not personal wrongdoing, however egregious.
