Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera-Arroyo

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera-Arroyo. Read the opinion of the Court — 84 F.3d 7
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided May 15, 1996·No. 95-2167·Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion



June 6, 1996
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-2167

WILLIE VICTOR ORTIZ-PI ERO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

VICTOR RIVERA-ARROYO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR OF GURABO, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on May 15, 1996, is amended as
follows:

Cover page: Change "[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District ______________
Judge" to "Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge" _____ __________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-2167

WILLIE VICTOR ORTIZ-PI ERO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

VICTOR RIVERA-ARROYO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MAYOR OF GURABO, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________

and Cyr, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Carlos A. Del Valle Cruz for appellant. ________________________
Elisa Bobonis Lang, with whom Jos R. Gaztambide and Gaztambide & __________________ __________________ ____________
Plaza were on brief for appellees. _____

____________________

May 15, 1996
____________________

2

3

CYR, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Willie Victor Ortiz CYR, Circuit Judge. _____________

Pinero ("Ortiz") appeals from a district court judgment dismiss-

ing his political discrimination claims against the City of

Gurabo, Puerto Rico, and its incumbent Mayor. We affirm.

I I

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND __________

In 1981, the City of Gurabo enacted an ordinance,

pursuant to P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3, 1351, designating eleven

municipal offices as positions of "trust" or "confidentiality,"

including the directorship of the Office of Federal Programs

("OFP"), the municipal agency charged with obtaining and adminis-

tering federal funding for various public works projects. See ___

Municipal Ordinance No. 3, Series 1981-82 (Sept. 14, 1981).

In August 1991, then-Mayor Ramon Garcia Caraballo

appointed Ortiz, a fellow member of the Popular Democratic Party

(PDP), as OFP Director, and allegedly described the position to

Ortiz as a non-"confidence" position. Mayor Caraballo later

extended Ortiz' appointment through August 1993. In November

1992, however, after the PDP mayoral candidate was rejected by

the electorate, outgoing Mayor Caraballo notified Ortiz that he

should resign forthwith because the OFP directorship was a

"confidential" position which the new administration was entitled

to fill. Ortiz refused to resign. Thereafter, the incoming New

Progressive Party (NPP) mayor, defendant-appellee Willie Victor

Rivera Arroyo ("Rivera"), dismissed Ortiz.

In due course, Ortiz initiated the present action for

4

damages and reinstatement under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City

of Gurabo and Mayor Rivera, claiming political discrimination and

deprivation of his property interest in continued employment

without the benefit of a pretermination hearing, in violation of

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Consti-

tution. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground

that the OFP directorship is a "trust" position for which compat-

ible political affiliation constitutes a legitimate qualifi-

cation. See Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980); Elrod v. ___ ______ ______ _____

Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976). Their motion was accompanied by a _____

written "certification" from the City personnel office defining

the responsibilities of the OFP directorship.1 After determin-

ing that the evidence compelled a finding that the OFP director-

ship is a trust position, the district court granted summary

judgment for defendants on all claims. Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera- ____________ _______

Acevedo, 900 F. Supp. 574 (D.P.R. 1995). _______

II II

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION __________

A. Standard of Review A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera-Arroyo, (1st Cir. 1996).

Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera-Arroyo (Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera-Arroyo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elrod v. Burns
427 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Branti v. Finkel
445 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Texaco, Inc. v. Short
454 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
470 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Jirau-Bernal v. Agrait
37 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1994)
Venancia Ferrer v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc.
914 F.2d 309 (First Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Alexis Javier Angueira
951 F.2d 12 (First Circuit, 1991)
Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera Acevedo
900 F. Supp. 574 (D. Puerto Rico, 1995)