WPCK  N dJFD>tga d<سAp-XIHԢ(؄#2t?^>OM{ w2̶ŽfWk/oDy"~2{n`25\]! ɨo\1K4%_̍ MX Y3 O#))t0d2na$\_I.^=>63<#G;;.ߦXHfAϤ)XJ[sޓ%`:TW|+xsoi'f MT|8VpL;il;1az4ؙlʊ dgϱ2PsˬDĠ0K-lT׌+u:ʵMU]7u>1ECX|T7 F*d95Q kb |J$S˽h>&M1m# % 0D 0G U:H 0 U8g nT N U@ ^ 5 wA 4E Y h mj E f a  N 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0A 0 0C 0/ 0 0 0 0y 0D 0  B 0 0@ 0 0 0 0a 0, 0 0 0{! 008" 0<h" 0" 0>b# 0v# 0`$ 0`v$ 0`$ 0`6% 0`% 08% 0.& 02' 02' 0:.( 0 Yh( 0_( 0  ) 0j** 0+ B*- D/B- D+q- 0- D/ / 0O/ 060 0S0 0:[1 0^1 0<1 0N/2 1}2 723^63U63 1u3 72?4 0cq4U>4556d7*8U*8 A9 0c9 0K(:UBs:b::=[='?A 0wZDDWqJHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2J$ !XQXXX    =QXXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z(Times New Roman B/s M/9?,}backup 3|xUTABLE A *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d(2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7G(X7  ?_%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7&  d dF)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?_%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7F)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$0CEKQW]cioAutoList1A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:RA:L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Vi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  \  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5%2A`ArialZabH&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(;31$ !XQXXX  ( $ Figure  1  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  J$XDLXXX  =DLXXdd=    1    _Massachusettslawinvestsfirearmslicensingauthorityinthe  chiefofpolice.SeeHowardv.ChiefofPoliceofWakefield,794  N.E.2d604,606(Mass.App.Ct.2003)("[A]chiefofpolicemay \ issueacarryinglicense'ifitappearsthattheapplicantisa 2 suitablepersontobeissuedsuchlicense'andhasanacceptable X reasonforrequestingsuchalicense.")(quotingMass.Gen.Laws . ch.140,131(d)).   Q J$XDLXXX  =DLXXdd=    2    _Charlotte'sAffidavitofIrreparableHarmalleged,inter  alia,thatshetwicehadbeenrapedbyRosenfeld.  J$XDLXXX  =DLXXdd=    3    _Baimatestifiedduringhisdepositionthatthesehearings  weremotivatedbypoliticaldifferences,includingarunning  disputebetweenhimselfandtheBoardofSelectmenoverwhoshould \ controlcertainfunctionswithintheMillisPoliceDepartment. 2 RosenfeldcontendsthatBaimaalsobelievedthatRosenfeld'smother X hadsomeresponsibilityforinstigatingthehearings.  #! ' Turner0Turner .   (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#  J$XDLXXX  =DLXXdd=    4    _WhetherornotBaimaactedwithinthestatelawboundsof  discretionis,ofcourse,adifferentquestion.Forexample,  RosenfeldcontendsthatBaimashouldhavegivenmoreweighttothe \ districtattorney'sletter,whichstatedthattheprosecutioncould 2 notgoforwardduetoCharlotte'sfailuretocooperate.Rosenfeld X alsoallegesthatthephotographofCharlottewas"doctored"by . Egy.IfRosenfeldwantstoarguethatheis,infact,a"suitable   person,"hisproperrecourseiswiththestatecourts.SeeMass.   Gen.Lawsch.140,131(f)("Anyapplicantorholderaggrievedby `  adenial,revocationorsuspensionofalicense...[may]filea 6   petitiontoobtainjudicialreviewinthedistrictcourthaving  \  jurisdictioninthecityortownwhereintheapplicantfiledfor,  2  orwasissued,suchlicense.").Atoralargument,wewereadvised   thatanappealonthesematterswasstillpendingbeforethe   WrenthamDistrictCourt. M J$XDLXXX  =DLXXdd=    5    _Thedistrictcourtassumed,asdowe,thatRosenfeldis  allegingaviolationofhisFourthAmendmentrights. !XDLXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !     :XXDL 7b:UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#: 7b##XDLX:#  WXXDL ?WFortheFirstCircuit#W ?##XDLXWٛ#      `  A') ` dE< ` A   No.031320   @hh#JOELROSENFELD, K  @ Plaintiff,Appellant,  G  @tt)v.   @0 0 DAVIDC._EGY_ԀandALBERTJ._BAIMA_, O  @Defendants,Appellees. K  A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS 8 @[Hon.DouglasP._Woodlock_,U.S.DistrictJudge] 4 A') ` dE<` A  @'Before u   @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge, !q Howard,CircuitJudge,  and_DiClerico_,*DistrictJudge. y! A') ` dE<!` A !K$       RobertW.Walkerforappellant. "0&   StephenC._Pfaff_,withwhomDouglasI._Louison_andMerrick, #' _Louison_Ԁ&Costello,LLC,wereonbrief,forappelleeDavid_Egy_. $(   WilliamP._Breen_,Jr.,withwhomMurphy,Hesse,_Toomey_Ԁ& b% ) _Lehane_,_LLP_,wereonbriefforappelleeAlbertJ._Baima_. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $  SI)n$. @37895@SOctober2,2003 )D%0  RHC*&1" @37895 @ R()n$2  (* !  򀀀 + '2   *OftheDistrictofNewHampshire,sittingbydesignation. ,'3      `   |-(4? _  8cDLcXXdd8d*,X` XX*",US ,  (:!&),fOY ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge .Challengingcertaindecisionsof  thepolicechiefandtheconductofafellowofficer,adischarged x policeofficersoughtreliefinfederalcourtunder $t 42U.S.C.1983andMassachusettslaw.Thedistrictcourtgranted   summaryjudgmentforthedefendantsonthemeritsofallclaims |  exceptoneforassaultandbattery,overwhichitdeclinedto ( x  exercisesupplementaljurisdiction.See28U.S.C.1367(c).The $  dischargedofficernowappeals.Havingviewedtheevidenceand   allreasonableinferencesinthelightmostfavorabletothe ,|  dischargedofficer,weconcludethatsummaryjudgmentwasproperly ( entered.     & t I. 0  ` PlaintiffappellantJoel't0Rosenfeldwassuspendedfromthe H Millis,Massachusetts,PoliceDepartmentonMay3,1998.Onthat  date,Rosenfeldwasalsorequiredtosurrenderbothhisservice P firearmandhisfirearmslicense.DefendantappelleePoliceChief L AlbertBaimaorderedtheseactionspendinganinvestigationofthe   circumstancessurroundinganApril30thstationhousealtercation T!" betweenRosenfeldandfellowofficerDavidEgy,theother #P$ defendantappellee.Forhisownpartinthealtercation,Egywas $& placedonadministrativeleaveandorderedtosurrenderbothhis X&!( servicefirearmandfirearmslicense. (T#*  ` AlthoughEgyeventually wasreinstatedtotheactive )%, roster,Rosenfeldwasnot.NordidRosenfeld'stroublesendthere. \+&. OnOctober13,1998,BaimadeniedRosenfeld'slicensetocarry  renewalapplication,e #  1      ׀whichRosenfeldhadsubmitted(alongwith \ severallettersofrecommendation)followingtheexpirationofhis X confiscatedlicense.    ` Rosenfeldalsowasexperiencingproblemsathome.In `  December1998,Rosenfeld'swife,Charlotte,filedfordivorce.  \  Basedonanaffidavitfiledwiththeprobatecourt,Charlottesoon   thereafterobtainedanexparterestrainingorderagainst d  Rosenfeld.gj #  2      ׀Subsequently,ahearingwasheldtodeterminewhether `  theexparteordershouldbecontinuedineffect.Rosenfeld,Egy,   andBaimawerepresentatthishearing,duringwhichEgysubmitted h totheprobatejudgeawrittenpolicereportdetailingRosenfeld's d allegedfailuretocomplywiththeinitialorder.Thecourt  ultimatelycontinuedCharlotte'srestrainingorder. l Ѐ ` Althoughtheaboveeventsareundisputed,theircauses h arehotlycontested.Specifically,thepartiesdisputetheactual  motivationsbehindCharlotte'sprocurementoftherestrainingorder p  andBaima'sdecisiontodenytherenewalapplication.An !l" appreciationoftheparties'competingversionsrequiressome  backtracking. \  ` In1986,OfficerRosenfeldhadsuedChiefBaimafor X trespassingonhisproperty.Apparently,Baimahadentered   Rosenfeld'shometoensurethatRosenfeld,whohadcalledinsick `  toworkthatday,wasgenuinelysick.In1987,theMillisBoardof  \  Selectmenheldseeminglyunrelatedhearingstodeterminewhether   Baimashouldberemovedaspolicechief.h #  3      ׀AlthoughRosenfeld,Egy, d  andseveralotherpoliceofficerstestifiedagainstBaimaatthe `  hearings,theBoardtooknoadverseaction.Rosenfeldbelieves   thatBaimahasheldagrudgeagainsthimeversince. h Ѐ ` Despiteanygrudgethatmayhaveexisted,Baimaand d Rosenfeldenjoyeda"professional"workingrelationshipduringthe  tenyearsthatfollowedthe1987hearings.Butin1997,aseries l ofeventscausedtherelationshiptosour.Theproblemsbeganwhen h CharlotteRosenfeldinformedOfficerEgythatherhusbandhadbeen  abusingher.EgythereafterbegancallingtheRosenfeldhome p  threetofourtimesperday,allegedlyoutofconcernfor !l"  Charlotte'ssafety.Rosenfeldcontends,however,thathenever "$ abusedCharlotteandthat,infact,EgyandCharlottewereinvolved  inanextramaritalaffair. \   ` Disgustedwiththe"constantinteractionbetween X CharlotteandEgyundertheguiseoffriendship,"Rosenfeld   initiatedtheApril30,1998altercation.UponencounteringEgyat `  thestationhouse,RosenfelddemandedthatEgystayawayfrom  \  Charlotte.Egyrefused,statingthatheknewallaboutRosenfeld's   spousalabuse.Toprovehispoint,Egyproducedaphotograph d  depictingCharlottewithablackeye.Atsomepoint,Egyalso `  struckRosenfeldinthechest.    ` Thefollowingday,RosenfeldnotifiedChiefBaimaof h Egy'sassault.Whenaskedtoexplainhisactions,Egyinformed d BaimathatRosenfeldhadbeenabusingCharlotte.Thereafter,Baima  turnedtheinvestigationovertothedistrictattorney,removed l Rosenfeldfromtheactivedutyroster,andorderedRosenfeldto h surrenderhisservicefirearmandfirearmslicense.   ` Thesedecisions,togetherwithEgy'sassault,Egy's p  involvementinthesubsequentrestrainingorderproceedings,and !l" Baima'seventualdenialofRosenfeld'sfirearmsrenewal "$ application,weretheprimarybasesforRosenfeld'slawsuit. t$& Rosenfeld'ssomewhatramblingcomplaintcontainedfourteenseparate  &p!( counts,collectivelyallegingviolationsoftheFirst,Fourth,and '#* FourteenthAmendments,aswellasseveralconstitutionaland x)$, commonlawtortsunderMassachusettslaw.   $+t&.  ` Followingdiscovery,EgyandBaimamovedforsummary  judgmentonallofRosenfeld'sclaims.Asnotedearlier,the \ districtcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentonallcountsexceptan X assaultandbatterycount,whichitdismissedwithoutprejudice   under28U.S.C.1367(c).SeeRosenfeldv.Egy,No.Civ.A.01 `  10730DPW,2003WL222119(D.Mass.Jan.29,2003)(memorandumand  \  orderonmotionforsummaryjudgment).Thecourtreasoned,inter   alia,that(1)Baimawasentitledtoqualifiedimmunityonclaims d  arisingoutofhisdenialofRosenfeld'sfirearmsrenewal `  application,and(2)theRookerFeldmandoctrinebarredcertain   claimsagainstEgy. 󀀀 h  ` Thisappealfollowed. d    & t II.   / ` Wereviewsummaryjudgment't/decisionsdenovo,after  viewingtheevidence andallreasonableinferencesinthelight 4 mostfavorabletothenonmovingparty.Rosenbergv.Cityof 0 Everett,328F.3d12,17(1stCir.2003).Summaryjudgmentis   properwhen"thepleadings,depositions,answersto 8!" interrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththe "4$ affidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoany $& materialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentas <&!( amatteroflaw."Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). '8#*  ` Rosenfeldraisesseveralargumentsonappealchallenging )$, thedistrictcourt'sentryofsummaryjudgment.Havingconsidered @+&. allsucharguments,weagreewiththedistrictcourtthatsummary  judgmentwasproperonallcountsexcepttheassaultandbattery \ count.Becauseweareconvincedbythecourt'sthoroughreasoning X withrespecttomostofRosenfeld'sclaims,weaffirmitsentryof   judgmentonthoseclaimswithoutfurtherelaboration.Inourview, `  onlytwoissueswarrantfurtherdiscussion:(1)whetherthe  \  districtcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmentforBaimaon   Rosenfeld'sclaimthatthedenialofhisfirearmsrenewal d  applicationdeprivedhimofhisrightsundertheFirstand `  FourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,and(2)   whetherthedistrictcourtproperlygrantedEgysummaryjudgmenton h Rosenfeld'sconstitutionalclaimagainsthim. Wediscussthese d issuesinturn.     & t 0 ` A.TheDenialoftheRenewalApplication l` (#` (# 7  ` We'tl7firstconsiderRosenfeld'sclaimthatBaima's"refusal 4 torenew[Rosenfeld's]licensetocarry...[,]afterreceivingno 0 corroboratingevidenceofRosenfeld'sallegeddomesticabuse[,]was   nothingmorethanretaliatorydisciplineoriginatingfromBaima's 8!" discriminatoryanimus."Rosenfeldcontendsthatthis "4$ "discriminatoryanimus,"allegedlyrootedinhardfeelingsabout $& Rosenfeld's1986trespasssuitand1987testimonybeforetheMillis <&!( BoardofSelectmen,causedBaimatodenytherenewalapplicationin '8#* violationofRosenfeld'srightsundertheFirstandFourteenth )$, Amendments.  @+&.  ` IngrantingsummaryjudgmentforBaimaonthisclaim,the  districtcourtruledthatBaimawasentitledtoqualifiedimmunity. \ SeeHarlowv.Fitzgerald,457U.S.800,818(1982)("[G]overnment X officialsperformingdiscretionaryfunctionsgenerallyareshielded   fromliabilityforcivildamagesinsofarastheirconductdoesnot `  violate'clearlyestablished'statutoryorconstitutionalrightsof  \  whichareasonablepersonwouldhaveknown.").Theabledistrict   courtjudgemaywellhavedecidedthisquestioncorrectly,butwe d  neednotanddonotreachit;Rosenfeld'sclaimfailsbecauseno `  reasonablejurycouldfindeitheraFirstorFourteenthAmendment   violationonthefactsthatRosenfeldhasadduced.Cf.Saucierv. h Katz,533U.S.194,201(2001)("Acourtrequiredtoruleuponthe d qualifiedimmunityissuemustconsider,then,thisthreshold  question:Takeninthelightmostfavorabletothepartyasserting l theinjury,dothefactsallegedshowtheofficer'sconduct h violatedaconstitutionalright?Thismustbetheinitial  inquiry."(citationomitted)). p   ` BeforeturningtotheFirstAmendmentclaim,wedispose !l" ofRosenfeld'sFourteenthAmendmentequalprotectionand "$ substantivedueprocessclaims,whichdonotrequireextensive t$& analysis.Astoequalprotection,Rosenfeldhasnotpresented  &p!( sufficientevidencetoshowthathewastreateddifferentlythan '#* similarlysituatedindividuals.Moreover,thisclaimsubstantially x)$, overlapswithhisstrongerFirstAmendmentclaimaddressedbelow. $+t&. fOY  f f  SeeNestorColonMedina&Sucesores,Inc.v.Custodio,964F.2d32,  4445(1stCir.1992)("Thereisanobviousdangertoopeningup \ localpermittingdecisionstodetailedfederaljudicialscrutiny X underequalprotectionrubric.Ifdisgruntledpermitapplicants   couldcreateconstitutionalclaimsmerelybyallegingthatthey `  weretreateddifferentlyfromasimilarlysituatedapplicant,the  \  correctnessofvirtuallyanystatepermitdenialwouldbecome   subjecttolitigationinfederalcourt....Giventheoverlapof d  [plaintiff'sFirstAmendmentandequalprotectionclaims],andthe `  vastproblemsthatwouldbecreated,weseelittlebasisor   justificationforapplyingequalprotectionanalysisinthepresent h situation."). d  ` Regardingsubstantivedueprocess,Rosenfeldhasneither  demonstratedatrialworthyissueastowhetherBaima'sdecision l "shockstheconscience"noridentifiedaprotectedpropertyor h libertyinterestinfringedbythenonrenewalofhislicense.See  CruzErazov.RiveraMontanez,212F.3d617,622(1stCir.2000) S p  ("Therearetwotheoriesunderwhichaplaintiffmaybringa !l" substantivedueprocessclaim.Underthefirst,aplaintiffmust "$ demonstrateadeprivationofanidentifiedlibertyorproperty t$& interestprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendment.Underthesecond,  &p!( aplaintiffisnotrequiredtoprovethedeprivation...,but, '#* rather,hemustprovethatthestate'sconduct'shocksthe x)$, conscience.'"(citationomitted));Howard,794N.E.2dat607("The $+t&. DeclarationofRightsoftheMassachusettsConstitutionprovides  theprivatecitizennorighttokeepandbeararms,andthusthere \ isnoquestionofapropertyrightordeprivationofliberty X involvedinthestatutoryproceduresforobtainingalicenseto   carryfirearms."(citationsandinternalquotationomitted)). `   `   ToprevailonhisFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim, _   Rosenfeldmustshowthathisconstitutionallyprotectedconduct-  [  his1986lawsuitand1987testimonywasa"substantialfactor"   behindBaima'sdecisiontodenytherenewalapplication.See c  Collinsv.Nuzzo,244F.3d246,25152(1stCir.2001).If _ Rosenfeldmeetsthisthresholdburden,theburdenshiftstoBaima   toprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethathewouldhave g reachedthesamedecisionevenintheabsenceofRosenfeld's1986 c lawsuitand1987testimony.Seeid.;seealsoMt.HealthyCity  Sch.Dist.Bd.ofEduc.v.Doyle,429U.S.274,287(1977). k  ` Rosenfeldattemptstosatisfyhisthresholdburdenby j callingourattentiontoafewrandomcommentsallegedlymadeby  f  Baimaduringthetenyearsthatfollowedthe1987hearings.Weare !" presentedwiththedepositiontestimonyofthreedepartment n#$ officers,allofwhomtestifiedthat,atonetimeoranother,Baima %j & expressedtothemhisdispleasurewiththeeventssurroundingthe &"( 1987hearings.Relevantportionsofthesedepositionsare r(#* reproducedbelow.  *n%,  ` DepositionofOfficerDixon   R(83V! !8 ` Q:Now,youtestifiedpreviouslythatMr.  Baimahadsaidatonepointintimeinthe   lockerroomthathewasgoingtogetthe Z  peopleinvolvedinthehearings,doyourecall 0  thattestimony? V` x` x 8 ` A:Yes./  ` x` x 8 ` Q:Whenwasitthathesaidthat?X ` x` x 8 ` A:Thatwasn'tallthatlongago.Hehad   alwaysexpressedthatupuntilashorttime W  beforehestoppedbeingchief[inJune1999].-} ` x` x 8 ` Q:Howmanytimesdidyouhearhimsay,Iam V  goingtogeteverybodyinvolvedinthat?,|` x` x 8 ` ...U` x` x 8 ` A:Three,fourtimes.~` x` x 8 ` Q:Woulditbefairtosaythetimeinthe  lockerroomwastenyearsafterthehearings } hadtakenplace?S` x` x 8 ` A:Basically.|` x` x iT ` DepositionofOfficerMacLeod  9,X` X,X` X98 ` 0 ` x` x ` Q:Areyouawareofanyconversationinwhich  Baimastatedthatitwashisintentto y retaliateagainstindividualsthathad O  previouslyprovidedtestimonyagainsthim %!u beforetheboardofselectmen?!K x x 8 ` 0 ` x` x ` A:Thatisn'tthewordingheused,butthe $#t substance.#J  x x 8 ` Q:Well,tellmeaboutthewordingheused.#%s !` x` x 8 ` 0 ` x` x ` A:Weweregoingto[aseminar]....Onthe L&!" wayoverhewastalkingaboutthenewboard "'r"# ofselectmen,hesaid,"They'rejustasbad 'H#$ asthelast;they'reafterme....Iam ($% goingtogeteverybodythattriedtoscrew )$& meduringthoseyears."z*%' x x VY +&(  ` DepositionofOfficerQuinn  8 ` 0 ` x` x ` Q:WhatconductorstatementsdidBaimamake  thatyouareawareofwhichledyouto  concludeorbelievethat[Baima]didnot [ like[Rosenfeld]?1  x x 8 ` 0 ` x` x ` A:Hehadmadeacommentonetimeaboutthe Z  factthatJoelhadsuedhimandthathe'd 0  neverforgetit. V x x 8 ` Q:Anyothercomments?/  ` x` x 8 ` 0 ` x` x ` A:0 x xNotthatIrecallexactlyanything.He X  madecommentsinpassingsometimes,butI .~  don'trecallanycommentsthatwere T  directedagainst[Rosenfeld].*  x x ]  ` "Whileambiguousremarksmay,undersomecircumstances, ,| helptoilluminatethesummaryjudgmentrecord,suchremarksrarely ( willsufficetoconceiveanissueofmaterialfactwhennone  otherwiseexists."NationalAmusements,Inc.v.TownofDedham,43 0 F.3d731,74344(1stCir.1995) .Baima'sstatements,evenif , viewedinthemostcynicallight,areatbestambiguousreferences  toadecadeoldgrudgeheldagainstanumberofindividuals.In 4 fact,theonlytestimonyconcerningRosenfeldhimself,that 0 providedbyOfficerQuinn,speaksintermsofanunpleasantmemory   andnotintermsofrevenge.Asthedistrictcourtproperlynoted 8"! initsdiscussionofaparallelclaim,evidenceofafreefloating #4# desiretogetevenissimplynotenoughtoestablishtherequisite % % "substantialfactor."Wereitotherwise,thethresholdhurdle <'"' requiredbytheConstitutionwouldamounttolittlemorethana (8$) steppingstone. *%+  ` Additionally,Rosenfeld's1987testimonyistoofar  removedintimefromBaima's1998decisiontogroundareasonable \ inferenceofretaliation.Aswefrequentlyhaveobservedin X antidiscriminationcases,"theinferenceofacausalconnection   becomestenuouswiththepassageoftime."Dresslerv.Daniel,315 `  F.3d75,80(1stCir.2003)(affirmingsummaryjudgmentupon  \  findingthatnoreasonablefactfindercouldfindacausal   connectionbetweentheprotectedconductandanadverseaction d  takentwoyearslater);seealsoLewisv.GilletteCo.,22F.3d22, `  25(1stCir.1994)(grantingsummaryjudgmentwheremorethantwo  yearshadelapsedbetweentheprotectedconductandthealleged t retaliation);Mesnickv.GeneralElec.Co.,950F.2d816,828(1st  p Cir.1991)(holdingthataninemonthperiodbetweentheprotected  conductandallegedretaliationunderminedtheinferenceof x causation). $t  ` Wehavepreviouslystated: #s 8 ` [A]courtponderinga[summaryjudgment] " r  motionneednotembraceinferencesthatare  H! wildlyimprobableorthatrelyon'tenuous !" insinuation.'...[E]venincaseswhere "# elusiveconceptssuchasmotiveorintentare z#$ atissue,summaryjudgmentmaybeappropriate P$% ifthenonmovingpartyrestsmerelyupon &%v & conclusoryallegations,improbableinferences, %L!' andunsupportedspeculation.&""(` x` x kNationalAmusements,Inc.,43F.3dat74344(citationsomittedand $)t$* emphasisadded).GiventhetenuousnatureofRosenfeld'sevidence * &, andthestrongercompetingevidenceonwhichwenextfocus,we  believethattheinferencesRosenfeldinvitesustodraware \ improbable. X   ` EvenassumingarguendothatBaima'scommentsare  W unambiguousandthatthe1986lawsuitand1987testimonyareclose   enoughintimetothe1998licensedenialtoestablishareasonable _   inferenceofretaliatorymotive,suchaninferenceisconsiderably  [  weakenedbyotherfactsintherecord. SeeLewisv.Cityof   Boston,321F.3d207,220(1stCir.2003)(findingthat,inthis c  particularcase,"theinferencecarriedbythetemporal _ proximity...dissipateswhenconsiderationisgiventothe   attendantcircumstances"(emphasisadded)).Notonlydoesthe g recordcontainevidencedisputingtheassertionthatBaimahelda c grudgeagainstRosenfeld,italsocontainsstrongevidencethat  Baima'snonrenewalofRosenfeld'slicensewouldhaveoccurred k irrespectiveoftheirhistory. g  ` First,theevidenceportraystheRosenfeldBaima  f  relationshipinawaythatcallsintoquestionRosenfeld's !" descriptionofBaimaasapersonheperceivedtobeagrudge n#$ holding,revengeseeker.Forexample,duringhisdeposition, %j & RosenfeldtestifiedthatBaimahadbeenaninvitedguestathis &"( weddingandthatBaima"mighthave"attendednotonlythewedding r(#* butalsootherfamilyfunctionssuchasabarmitzvahandapost *n%, funeralreceptionintheRosenfeldhome.Bothmentestifiedthat +'. theyenjoyedaprofessionalrelationshipwiththeother,and  RosenfeldacknowledgedthatBaimahaddisplayednoanimositytoward \ himduringthetenyearsfollowingthe1987hearings.Officer X Dixon,oneofthethreeofficerswhotestifiedconcerningcomments   allegedlymadebyBaima,alsotestifiedthatitwashis `  understandingthatChiefBaimawasafriendtoRosenfeld. While  \  suchevidenceisnotdispositive,itservestoweakenfurtheran   inferencethatalreadyistoospeculative. d   ` Second,andmoreimportantly,Baimahadacompelling c  reasonfordenyingRosenfeld'srenewalapplication:substantiated _ allegationsofspousalabuse.Specifically,Baimahadbeforehim   aphotographdepictingCharlottewithabruisedface,areportfrom g EgydetailingCharlotte'saccusations,andareportfromathird c officer,OfficerMacLeod,statingthathehad"seenfirsthand  examplesof[Rosenfeld's]physicalviolencetowards[Charlotte]and k [had]heardtalkthroughmembersoftheNorfolkHuntClub g [regarding]this."Thisconsiderableevidenceofspousalabuse   availabletoBaimaatthetimeofhisdecisionstronglysuggests o!" thatBaimadeniedtherenewalapplicationbecauseRosenfeldfailed #k$ tosatisfythe"suitableperson"standardusedinMassachusettsto $ & governtheissuanceoffirearmpermits.SeeMass.Gen.Lawsch. s&!(  140,131(d);seealsoHoward,794N.E.2dat606(notingthatthe (o#* "suitableperson"standard"vestsinthechiefbroaddiscretionor  'considerablelatitude'").k #  4      ׀ \   ` Insummary,therewasinsufficientevidencetoestablish [ atrialworthyissueonRosenfeld'sretaliationclaim.Onthe  W recordasawhole,theisolatedcommentstowhichRosenfeldpoints   areinsufficienttogroundafindingthatBaima'snonrenewalof _   Rosenfeld'slicensewasgroundedinretaliationandwouldnothave  [  occurredabsenttheparties'tangledhistory.Noreasonable   factfindercouldconcludethatBaima'sconductdeprivedRosenfeld c  ofhisFirstAmendmentrights. _  &  0 ` B.TheFederalConstitutionalClaimAgainstEgy ^` (#` (#   ` Inhiscomplaint,Rosenfeld'($ƁԀcontendedthathis )y constitutionalrightswereviolatedasaresultofEgy'simproper % involvementinboththeissuanceandcontinuanceofCharlotte's  restrainingorder.Asweunderstandit,Rosenfeld'spositionis -} thataviable1983claimexistsbecauseEgy"redirectedthe  ProbateCourt'sattentionawayfromthetruthand[deprived] \ Rosenfeld[of]theopportunitytoaddressCharlotte'sfabricated X allegationswhichwouldhaveclearedhisnameandterminatedthe   restrainingorderwhichseizedhisliberty."Forsupport, `  RosenfeldarguesthatEgybothcoercedCharlotteintoobtainingthe  \  exparterestrainingorderandpresentedtotheprobatecourtat   thecontinuancehearingafalsereport,whichcalledintoquestion d  Rosenfeld'scompliancewiththeexparteorder.Neitherissuewas `  raisedbeforetheprobatecourt.    ` Withoutreachingthemeritsofthisamorphousclaim,l #  5      ׀the   districtcourtenteredsummaryjudgmentforEgyonthethreshold g groundthattheclaimwasbarredbytheRookerFeldmandoctrine. c SeeMandelv.TownofOrleans,326F.3d267,271(1stCir.2003)  (notingthattheRookerFeldmandoctrineis"atleastquasi w jurisdictional")(citingPicardv.MembersoftheEmployeeRet.Bd. #s ofProvidence,275F.3d139,145(1stCir.2001));seealso   Rookerv.FidelityTrustCo.,263U.S.413(1923);D.C.Ct.of {!" App.v.Feldman,460U.S.462(1983).Inthecourt'sview,an '#w$ assessmentofthemeritsofRosenfeld'sclaimwouldeffectively $# & requireittoreviewjudgmentsmadebytheprobatecourtin &!( issuing,andthencontinuing,therestrainingorder.Rosenfeld +({#* arguesthatthedoctrinedoesnotapplybecauseheisnothere  attackingtherestrainingorderperse.Heiswrong. \  ` WehavedescribedthecontoursoftheRookerFeldman [ doctrineasfollows:  W 8 ` TheRookerFeldmandoctrineprohibitsfederal  V districtandcircuitcourtsfromreviewing  ,  statecourtjudgments.Whereapartydidnot    actuallypresentitsfederalclaimsinstate   court,RookerFeldmanforecloseslowerfederal ^  courtjurisdictionoverclaimsthatare 4  inextricablyintertwinedwiththeclaims  Z  adjudicatedinastatecourt.Afederal 0  claimisinextricablyintertwinedwiththe  statecourtclaimsifthefederalclaim  succeedsonlytotheextentthatthestate b courtwronglydecidedtheissuesbeforeit.8` x` x ŌSheehanv.Marr,207F.3d35,3940(1stCir.2000)(citationsand  quotationmarksomitted);seealsoMandel,326F.3dat271 6 ("Althoughresjudicatadoctrinewouldoftenachievesimilar 2 effects,RookerFeldman...iswidelyusedbythefederalcourt  topreventendrunsaroundstatejudgments.");Wilsonv.Shumway, : 264F.3d120,126(1stCir.2001)(observingthat42U.S.C.1983 6 isnottobeusedasavehicleforavoidingapplicationofthe !! RookerFeldmandoctrine). >##  ` Rosenfeld'sallegedconstitutionalinjurythe =% % restrainingorderthat"seizedhisliberty"couldonlyexistto &9"' theextentthattheprobatecourtwronglydecidedtoissue,and (#) latercontinue,therestrainingorder.Inotherwords,Rosenfeld's A*%+ libertyneverwouldhavebeen"seized"andhisdubious +='- constitutionalclaimneverraisedhadtheprobatecourt  determinedthatarestrainingorderwasnotwarranted. \ Rosenfeld'sclaimagainstEgyis,then,essentiallyachallengeto X thereliabilityoftheevidencesupportingthecontinuanceofthe   restrainingorder!anissuethatis"inextricablyintertwined" `  withtheclaimsadjudicatedinstatecourt.TheRookerFeldman  \  doctrinepreventsusfromaddressingit.   A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A    & s III.       ` Forthereasonsstatedabove,thejudgmentofthe " districtcourtis's"Ԁ affirmed .