No. 92-2370
HPY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
_____________
and Burns, Senior District Judge.
_____________________
____________________
Francisco
J.
Amundaray-Rodriguez, Mirta
E. Rodriguez-Mo
____________________________________
________________________
Attorney, Department of Justice, Adrian Mercado and Mercado & Soto
______________
______________
Per Curiam.
__________
U.S.C.
1983
Rico, certain
1,000.
The
Puerto
Rico
Housing
HPY, Inc.,
against
of their
three public
officials, and
Administration.
brought this
and
action under
authorities in
John Does
Puerto
1 through
The heart of
and
42
the
the
Rural
following allegation:
On or about 1985, squatters, without
valid title or authorization from the
plaintiff started massive land invasions
on
said
properties
[belonging
to
plaintiff].
The
squatters,
also
Defendants of [sic] this suit, encouraged
and abetted by the other Defendants,
proceeded to construct or build shacks
and houses on Plaintiff's properties.
This, said the complaint, comprised a deprivation of property
rights "without due process and without due compensation."
The
failure
defendants
to state
opposing
the
moved
to
a claim.
motion,
HPY
offered
more
land
had
squatters by
that
encouraged
for
12(b)(6).
occupied
defendants
complaint
Civ. P.
Specifically, it
and
the
Fed. R.
allegations.
its
dismiss
the
supplying public
few
alleged
some
factual
that squatters
or
all
invasion
and
of
the
had
named
abetted
In
the
to the
shacks.
The
district court
ultimately dismissed
that "we
are as
likely to
squeeze blood
a claim,
from a
-2-2-
. . . ."
HPY appeals.1
We affirm
Section 1983
creates a
claim for injuries done by anyone who "acting under color of"
state law deprives the victim
immunities" protected
complaint did not
under
this
as
The original
illuminated
motions to dismiss.
the
by HPY's
oppositions
benefits of liberal
pleading rules, 5
to
the
allowing HPY
1219 (1990),
we cannot see
how HPY can premise a claim under section 1983 upon the facts
alleged.
We
will assume
arguendo
________
that the
color of
state law
property
But
local
law or
violation
tortious
so
regulation,
long as
misconduct.
then there
local law
is no
affords
Hudson v. Palmer,
______
______
constitutional
______________
a remedy
468 U.S.
for any
517, 533
____________________
1After filing its brief with this court, HPY filed two
informative motions.
One motion amended a page reference
included in
its brief;
the second provided
us with
supplemental support for its argument.
We grant both
motions.
-3-3-
deprivation
if state
afforded).
Defendants
L.P.R.A.
3077.
assertion
the abetting of
compensation.
But
deprivation so
long as
remedy
to
secure
Planning Commission
____________________
(1985).
again
there
is
no
compensation
for
takings.
v. Hamilton Bank,
______________
473
constitutional
an appropriate
Williamson
__________
U.S. 172,
194
once
prejudice in
light
of
the liberal
leave-to-amend
the
filed
Even so,
in its
three oppositions
nor has it
-4-4-
filed a reply
just
in this
court responding
to the
authorities
Accordingly,
we
do
not
think
that
the
dismissal
with
-5-5-