DIAZ-ROMAN v. DENIS

If such allegations prove to be true, a court owes no deference to a magistrate's decision to issue an arrest warrant because the correct version of the material facts was never given to the magistrate. Id. Moreover, whenever the finding of probable cause is based on a search warrant that was based solely on false statements made in a supporting affidavit, the arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. See Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davila, 135 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 1998) (reversing district court's decision granting summary judgment on the issue of whether police officers knowingly used false information in order to obtain the search warrant, thus, violating the Fourth Amendment).

In the present case, it is an uncontested fact that Ortiz was the agent who obtained the search warrant and signed its accompanying sworn statement. (Docket No. 198-2 at 8, 14.) The record also indicates that once the FBI noticed that the search warrant contained some discrepancies, disciplinary measures were taken against Ortiz. (Docket No. 198-3.) It is clear that none of the appearing defendants obtained the search warrant. However, the record also reveals that once Denis told Ruiz that Diaz was in possession of illegal weapons, Ruiz assigned Ortiz to the mission. (Docket Nos. 198-3 and 204-2.) The notes taken by Ortiz when he was assigned to the mission indicate that other police officers, namely Ruiz, provided the alleged false information that he later used to obtain the search warrant.

The law saddles Defendants with the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of material fact at summary judgment. Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating the other Defendants' knowledge that the evidence contained in the search warrant was false. The evidence presented, specifically Ruiz's deposition testimony, raises factual disputes as to the Defendants' awareness of the falsity of the statements in support of the search warrant when the operative was carried out. Furthermore, with respect to the other Defendants, Plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that all of the named defendants acted in violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by either participating or failing to intervene in the alleged operative with the knowledge that such charges were fabricated against Plaintiff. Accordingly, this court DENIES summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against all the defendants premised on violations of his Fourth Amendment rights.

D. The State Law Claims

The federal claims that remain against Defendants and Dumeng arise out of the same "nucleus of operative fact" as Plaintiff's state law causes of action against them. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage, 57 F.3d 1168, 1175 (1st Cir. 1995). As previously explained, Plaintiff has plead a plausible Fourth Amendment claim pursuant to Section 1983; therefore, "federal claims remain and supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth action remains proper." Colon-Andino, 634 F. Supp. 2d at 238.

The court DENIES co-defendant Dumeng's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 179) and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 184.) The only surviving claims before this court are Plaintiff's Section 1983 and Fourth Amendment claims.