Yates v. Gawel ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          October 13, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1660

                                     JOHN YATES,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  MICHAEL A. GAWEL, 
                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
                                  ____________________
                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________

                                 ____________________

            Arthur E. Chatfield, III on brief for appellant.
            ________________________
            Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Powers, on brief for appellee.
            ____________     _______________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






















                 Per Curiam.   Appellant John Yates  appeals the granting
                 __________

            of  judgment as a matter  of law to  appellee Officer Michael

            Gawel of  the Foster Police Department  on appellant's claims

            of   civil  rights  violations,  due  to  appellee's  alleged

            malicious  prosecution  and  false arrest  of  appellant, and

            appellant's  state law  claim of  malicious prosecution.   We

            affirm.

                 Judgment as  a  matter of  law was  properly granted  on

            appellant's claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C.  

            1983  because appellant failed to show that he had suffered a

            deprivation of  either  his  substantive  or  procedural  due

            process rights under the Fourteenth  Amendment.  See Senra v.
                                                             ___ _____

            Cunningham,  9  F.3d 168,  173  (1st Cir.  1993).   Appellant
            __________

            produced no  evidence, such  as that  he had  been physically

            abused,  detained  or  prosecuted  on   racial  or  political

            grounds,  which  would support  a  jury finding  that  he had

            suffered  a substantive due process violation.1  See id.  His
                                                             ___ __

            failure to demonstrate that the Rhode Island state law remedy

            for malicious prosecution was  inadequate to rectify any harm

            he might have suffered is fatal to his procedural due process

            claim.  Id.  
                    __





                                
            ____________________

            1.  Moreover, the  recent Supreme  Court case of  Albright v.
                                                              ________
            Oliver,  114 S.Ct.  807  (1994), "would  appear virtually  to
            ______
            foreclose reliance  on substantive  due process as  the basis
            for a viable malicious prosecution claim under section 1983."
            Perez-Ruiz v. Crespo-Guillen, 25 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 1994).
            __________    ______________















                 To  establish  a claim  of  malicious  prosecution under

            Rhode  Island state  law,  appellant needed  to prove,  inter
                                                                    _____

            alia, that Officer Gawel lacked  probable cause to initiate a
            ____

            criminal proceeding against him.  Id. at 174.  Such a finding
                                              __

            was precluded in the instant case, by the fact that appellant

            had previously  been found guilty  of the criminal  charge in

            question  after trial  in  the Rhode  Island District  Court.

            Even though this verdict  was reversed after a jury  trial in

            the  Rhode Island  Superior Court,  the determination  by the

            Rhode Island District Court is nevertheless determinative  on

            the issue of probable cause under Rhode Island law.  See Nagy
                                                                 ___ ____

            v. McBurney, 120 R.I. 925, 931, 392 A.2d 365,  368 (1978) ("a
               ________

            judicial determination by a court of original jurisdiction in

            favor  of the  person  who initiated  .  . .  proceedings  is

            generally held  to be conclusive evidence  of probable cause,

            even though  that  determination is  ultimately  reversed  on

            appeal, unless it is shown to have  been obtained by fraud or

            other imposition upon the court") (citing cases).

                 Finally,  Gawel   presented  sufficient,  uncontradicted

            evidence  to demonstrate that he had a reasonable belief that

            probable cause existed to arrest appellant.  Therefore, Gawel

            was  entitled as a matter  of law to  qualified immunity from

            the  claim  that he  had  violated  appellant's civil  rights

            through a  false arrest.   See Ricci v.  Urso, 974 F.2d  5, 7
                                       ___ _____     ____

            (1st Cir. 1992).



                                         -3-















                 Affirmed.
                 ________



















































                                         -4-