Santos Ramirez v. Lopez Feliciano

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1152

                            HECTOR SANTOS RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                           CARLOS LOPEZ FELICIANO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

____________________

                              Torruella, Selya and Cyr,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

____________________

Howard Charles, with whom Ortiz, Toro & Ortiz Brunet was on brief
             ______________            __________________________
        for appellants.
             Edgardo  Rodriguez Quilichini, Assistant  Solicitor General, with
             _____________________________
        whom Pedro  A. Delgado-Hernandez,  Solicitor General, and  Carlos Lugo
             ___________________________                           ___________
        Fiol, Deputy Solicitor General, were on brief for appellees.
        ____

____________________

                                  September 1, 1994
                                                     
                                 ____________________

Per Curiam.  Appellant Hector Santos Ramirez, joined by
                    Per Curiam.  
                    __________

          his family,  initiated this  civil rights  action, see  42 U.S.C.
                                                             ___

            1983, alleging that  certain narcotics  agents affiliated  with

          the Puerto  Rico Police  had conspired  to violate his  constitu-

          tional rights under the Fourth  and Fourteenth Amendments to  the

          United States  Constitution by  using false statements  to obtain

          warrants to search his  residence and place of  business, without

          probable  cause.   The  defendant-officers  eventually moved  for

          summary  judgment on  grounds  of qualified  immunity and  Santos

          interposed written opposition.  

                    On the  recommendation  of the  magistrate  judge,  the

          district court  ordered all parties  to comply  with District  of

          Puerto Rico Local  Rule 311.12, which requires a party requesting

          or opposing summary judgment to file a detailed factual statement

          supported by specific references  to the record.1  The  statement
                              
          ____________________

               1Notwithstanding  Puerto  Rico  Local Rule  311.12,  Santos'
          initial opposition to  the motion for summary judgment  failed to
          specify  any disputed facts warranting  trial.  Local Rule 311.12
          provides:

                    Upon any motion for summary judgment, there  shall
               be served and filed  annexed to the motion a  separate,
               short, concise statement of  material facts as to which
               the moving party contends there is  no genuine issue to
               be  tried and the basis  of such contention  as to each
               material fact, properly supported by specific reference
               to the record.
                    All  material facts  set  forth in  the  statement
               required to  be  served by  the  moving party  will  be
               deemed  admitted unless  controverted by  the statement
               required to be served by the opposing party.
                    The papers  opposing a motion for summary judgment
               shall  include a separate,  short, concise statement of
               material  facts as to which it  is contended that there
               exists a genuine issue  to be tried, properly supported
               by specific reference to the record.

                                          2

of  facts filed  by Santos consisted  entirely of  loosely worded

          allegations imported from the complaint, rephrased in the form of

          questions  of fact, and accompanied by  a single record reference

          to Santos' own  affidavit affirming the  allegations in the  com-

          plaint:   "to the  best of our  knowledge the facts  set forth in

          [the  complaint] are true and  should be considered  as set forth

          herein."   The magistrate judge  ruled that Santos  had failed to

          comply with Rule 311.12,  and thereupon deemed all uncontroverted

          facts set  forth in defendants'  statement admitted.   See D.P.R.
                                                                 ___

          Loc. Rule 311.12; supra note 1.  The magistrate judge recommended
                            _____

          that  the district court grant the motion for summary judgment on

          qualified immunity  grounds.   The recommendation was  adopted by

          the  district court  over  Santos' timely  objection, and  Santos

          appealed. 

                    Santos concedes that Local Rule 311.12 was duly promul-

          gated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 83.  See generally Stepanischen
                                                 ___ _________ ____________

          v. Merchants Despatch Trans.  Corp., 722 F.2d 922, 929  (1st Cir.
             ________________________________

          1983)  (encouraging adoption of  local rules  prescribing summary

          judgment  procedures, and  citing the  forerunner to  D.P.R. Loc.

          Rule 311.12 as an exemplar for curbing imprecise summary judgment

          practices  which force  district  courts to  "ferret through  the

          record" to assess the viability of competing claims).  Of course,

          it  is well established  that the "[d]istrict  courts enjoy broad

          latitude  in administering  local  rules[, and]  are entitled  to

          demand adherence  to specific  mandates contained in  the rules."
                              
          ____________________

          D.P.R. Loc. Rule 311.12.  

                                          3

Air Line Pilots  Ass'n v. Precision  Valley Aviation, Inc.,  slip
          ______________________    ________________________________

          op. at  8 (1st Cir. June  7, 1994).  Recently,  we reaffirmed our

          longstanding  view that "local rules are  an important vehicle by

          which courts operate[, and they] carry the force of law."  Id. at
                                                                     ___

          7.

                    Even  though the  initial report and  recommendation to

          the district  judge recounted in detail  the requirements imposed

          by  Rule 311.12, as well as the governing summary judgment proce-

          dure, Santos'  Rule 311.12  statement of  facts in  opposition to

          summary judgment  contained but a single "record  reference" to a

          facially deficient  affidavit by Santos, see  Sheinkopf v. Stone,
                                                   ___  _________    _____

          927  F.2d 1259, 1270  (1st Cir. 1991)  ("It is apodictic  that an

          'affidavit . . . made upon information  and belief . . . does not

          comply with Rule 56(e).'") (quoting Automatic Radio Mfg., Inc. v.
                                              __________________________

          Hazeltine Research, Inc., 339 U.S. 827, 831 (1949)), which rested
          ________________________

          entirely on  the conclusory allegations in  the complaint, Moreau
                                                                     ______

          v.  Local 247, International Bhd.  of Firemen &  Oilers, 851 F.2d
              ___________________________________________________

          516, 518 (1st Cir. 1988)  ("The [party opposing summary judgment]

          may not merely rest on the  pleadings and arguments, but must set

          forth specific  facts showing  a genuine  issue about  a material

          fact.").  See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ("When a motion for
                    ___ _________

          summary  judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule,

          an  adverse party  may  not rest  upon  the mere  allegations  or

          denials of  the adverse  party's pleadings,  but .  . . must  set

          forth specific facts showing that  there is a genuine issue   for

          trial.").   Since  the opposition  submitted  by Santos  did  not

4

contain a "concise  statement of  material facts .  . .  properly

          supported by  specific reference to  the record," as  required by

          Local Rule  311.12, the specific  facts set forth  in defendants'

          duly supported  statement  of uncontroverted  facts  were,  quite

          properly,  deemed admitted.   See, e.g.,  Rivas v.  Federacion de
                                        ___  ____   _____     _____________

          Asociaciones  Pecuaria de Puerto Rico, 929 F.2d 814, 816 n.2 (1st
          _____________________________________

          Cir. 1991).  Finally, an independent review of the district court

          record, Velez-Gomez v. SMA Life Assur.  Co., 8 F.3d 873, 874 (1st
                  ___________    ____________________

          Cir. 1993), satisfies  us that defendants were  entitled to judg-

          ment, as a matter of law, based on the unopposed factual showings

          made in their statement of uncontroverted facts. 

                    Affirmed.  
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

5