## Facts

- Wilfredo Martinez Rodríguez, a Puerto Rico police officer, arrived early to his precinct to obtain his shift assignment and alleged he was subject to the shift commander’s orders.
- In the precinct parking lot, Officer Ángel Valentín Corali (on duty) taunted Martinez, drew his service revolver, aimed it at him, cocked the hammer, and placed his finger on the trigger.
- Inside the station, Valentín continued the taunting and repeatedly pointed the revolver at Martinez, including aiming at his groin/genitals.
- During this horseplay, the revolver discharged and severely injured Martinez.
- Martinez filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various supervisory officers and officials, asserting they failed to intervene and thereby violated his substantive due process rights; he also asserted pendent Puerto Rico law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the supervisory defendants on the federal claims and dismissed the pendent claims after concluding there was no constitutional duty to protect Martinez from the violence at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether Valentín’s conduct during the taunting and shooting constituted action “under color of state law” for § 1983 purposes.
2. Whether the Due Process Clause imposed on supervisory officials a constitutional duty to protect Martinez from harm by a fellow officer under a “special relationship” or “state-created danger” theory.
3. Whether the supervisors could be liable under § 1983 based on their own acts or omissions (including policy, custom, or deliberate indifference), rather than respondeat superior.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the supervisory defendants.
- The court held Valentín’s gun-waving horseplay was essentially personal misconduct not meaningfully tied to official authority or duties, making the color-of-law showing, at most, tenuous.
- The court held the Due Process Clause generally does not require the state to protect individuals from private violence, and neither a custodial “special relationship” nor an adequate “state-created danger” exception applied.
- The court held the record did not support supervisory liability because there was no evidence of an unlawful policy or custom or of deliberate indifference to a pervasive, known risk.
- With no viable federal claim, dismissal of the pendent Puerto Rico law claims was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Conduct is under color of state law only if it is meaningfully related to the actor’s governmental status or performance of official duties; on-duty status, uniform, or use of service equipment alone does not convert personal misconduct into state action.
- The Due Process Clause ordinarily imposes no affirmative duty on the state to protect individuals from violence by other private actors.
- A constitutional duty to protect may arise only in limited settings, including (1) custody or comparable restraint (“special relationship”), or (2) affirmative state action that creates or significantly increases a specific risk (“state-created danger”); inaction or nonfeasance typically does not suffice.
- Substantive due process liability requires conduct that is conscience-shocking; negligence and ordinary workplace failures generally fall short.
- Supervisory liability under § 1983 is not vicarious; a plaintiff must show the supervisor’s own conduct (such as policy-making, direct participation, or deliberate indifference) caused a constitutional deprivation.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit treated the shooting as the product of a coworker’s personal horseplay rather than an exercise of police authority and held that, absent custody or an affirmative, danger-creating act by supervisors (and absent proof of policy or deliberate indifference), the Due Process Clause did not support § 1983 liability against supervisory officials for failing to prevent the harm.


Martinez v. Colón, 54 F.3d 980 (1st Cir. 1995)