WPC$= }Pw.S]RA.euo {s8p¶wD~VNmp=ur~}EJJ#K3@/޵\ʝR{YOb}Bq ^k2iF8}bUJ,J/f)^&uT7 7QYdqur.9-\kE<;bR-^P|7E|%vvr4ۉ KC9q92;1]v|l~Ћk/ $xc?.QZxR.> [.FP~\mz;9`;K eTi&]̯rFAvCD;:9:ujlRXz %M 0GS U:   ^ ^wj4n 0cb 0D 0U:bE mNU8 0 0 0 0 0b 09 0  0 0C 0 0 0 0Y 0! 0 0 0g 0@! 0a 0/ 0 0 0! 0I" 0# 0#Y{$U6& 00 ' 0<:' 0v' 0>4( 0vr( 0`( 0`H) 0`) 0`* 0`h* 08* 0+ 02+ 0, 0:- 0Y:- 0_- 0 - 0j. 0f0 B*1 D/2 D+C2 0n2 D/3 0!4 064 0%5 0:-6 0^g6 0<6 1e7U>f7U*7 1u7 72C8U@u88UF4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4<4< Bz<z<z<z<z<z<z<z<z<z<z< 0<HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($XmTXXX,`  "CG Times Bold  T3$X6XXX    1    _PlaintiffsalsomadeaclaimagainstPuertoRicopoliceofficers  _L;pez_Ԁand_Lebr;n_Ԁpursuantto42U.S.C.1983,butthatclaimwas  dismissedbythedistrictcourtonthegroundthatthesedefendants \ wereactingundercoloroffederallaw,ratherthanstatelaw,as 2 federallydeputizedagents.Thatrulingisnotatissueinthis X interlocutoryappeal.£"3 \!3 H3|x(;3$ !X1 XXX  ($  *  *+ (_2623  ..- -U<4 9Z+ Courier New *D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2   O T3$X6XXX    2    _WhiletheUnitedStatesarguedbelowthatthe_FTCA_Ԁclaimagainst  itshouldbedismissedoncethegovernmentissubstitutedasthe  defendantparty,thatissueisnotbeforethiscourt.Our \ jurisdictionoverthisinterlocutoryappealextendsonlytothe 2 collateralorderdenyingtheUnitedStates'requestforparty X statusthroughsubstitution.<6X9`(Courier New0.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*CODEK1<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K1<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K1<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7G(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7&  d dF)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7F)2dxd0KS.SampleK1<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK1<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti)(E Z(Times New Roman  u T3$X6XXX    3    _Thiscourtrecentlynotedthat  8  [_i]t_Ԁisnotclearfromthe"creationofdanger"language \ in_DeShaney_whetherastateactionwhichenhancesor 2 createsdangertoanindividualwouldprovideaseparate X exceptiontothegeneralruleofnodutytoprotect,or . whetherthelanguageissimplyinserviceofthespecial   relationshipexceptionandprovidesasetof   circumstanceswherethestate'sactionsmightcreatea `  "specialrelationship"andthusadutytoprotect.6     Rivera,402F.3dat35n.5.<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular d(J2T3$ !X1 XXX      0   !X6XXX  _X+[XXX6+[XXX+[86XXdd8  *!  @@  VTAX+[UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  V,VTAFortheFirstCircuit#+[XV,#XX+[#X Xm#   #+[X X# X+[X6X Ay) ` dE<` A   No.041773   @ ANTONIO_VLEZ_Ԅ_D0AZ_;SANTA_GARC0A_Ԅ_HERNNDEZ_; a  @TT CONJUGALPARTNERSHIP_VLEZ_Ԅ_GARC0A_;@@ _YAHAIRA_Ԁ_FAJARDO_Ԅ_CORREA_; 7  @0 0 _ANTONECHA_Ԁ_VLEZ_Ԅ_FAJARDO_,aminor,  ]  @Plaintiffs,Appellees,   @tt)v. e  @DD_AMADO_ԀVEGA_IRIZARRY_;MIGUELA._MARRERO_;JANEERICKSON; a  @ _V0CTOR_ԀM._L:PEZ_;TEODORO_LEBR:N_,ETAL., 7 @Defendants,Appellants,  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, ? @%Appellant. ; Ay) ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT | @ FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO R @$ $ [Hon.JosAntonio_Fust_,U.S.DistrictJudge] (x Ay) ` dE<` A $ @'Before    @\ \ Torruella,Selya,andLynch, ! @hh#CircuitJudges. e " Ay) ` dE<"` A "a$     AnthonyA.Yang,withwhomBarbaraL._Herwig_,Attorneys, "F& AppellateStaff,CivilDivision,PeterD._Keisler_,Assistant #' AttorneyGeneral,andH.S._Garca_,UnitedStatesAttorney,wereon $( brief,forappellant. x% )   FrankD._Inserni_Ԅ_Milam_,withwhomLuisR._Mellado_Ԅ_Gonzlez_, N&!* wasonbrief,forappellees. $'t"+ Ay) ` dE<)` A )$. @"September2,2005 *%0 Ay) ` d E<6,` A  7,'2Y   *!86XXdXXd8*,X` XX* ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge. Thiscaseconcernsthetragic  deathofAntonio_Vlez_Ԅ_Garca_Ԁ("_Vlez_"),anundercoverFederal x BureauofInvestigation("FBI")cooperatingwitness,whowas $t murderedbyagangmemberwhileassistingtheFBIinacriminal   investigationintoPuertoRicogangrelateddrugtrafficking |  involvingtheuseoffirearms. ( x   ` _Vlez_'sparents,Antonio_Vlez_Ԅ_Daz_ԀandSanta_Garca_Ԅ $  _Hernndez_,hiswidow,_Yahaira_Ԁ_Fajardo_Ԅ_Correa_,andhisminor   daughter,_Antonecha_Ԁ_Vlez_Ԅ_Fajardo_Ԁ("_Vlez_'srelatives"),broughtan ,|  actionformoneydamagesintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor ( theDistrictofPuertoRicoagainsttheindividuallawenforcement  agentswithwhom_Vlez_Ԁwascooperatingatthetimeofhisdeath 0 FBIagents_Amado_ԀVega_Irizarry_,MiguelA._Marrero_,andJane , Erickson,andPuertoRicopoliceofficers_Vctor_ԀM._L;pez_Ԁand  Teodoro_Lebr;n_Ԁintheirindividualcapacities._Vlez_'s 4 relativesseekovertenmilliondollarsindamagesbasedontwo 0 principalclaimsformonetaryrelief:(1)aclaimpursuantto   _Bivens_v.SixUnknownFederalNarcoticsAgents,403U.S.388 8!" (1971),allegingaviolationoftheFifthAmendment;and(2)a "4$ negligenceclaimarisingunderthePuertoRicoConstitutionand $& PuertoRicostatutorylaw. <&!(  ` TheUnitedStatesandtheindividualdefendantsnowbring '8#* thepresentinterlocutoryappealchallengingthedistrictcourt's )$, opinionandorder,whichdeniedamotiontosubstitutetheUnited @+&. Statesasdefendantforthestatelawclaimpursuanttothe  _Westfall_ԀAct,28U.S.C.2679,andtodismissthe_Bivens_claim. \ @tt) I.  X  A.FactualBackground     ` OnoraboutJanuary16,2003,federalagentsarrested   _Vlez_Ԁforpossessionofcontrolledsubstancesandinformedhimthat D   hemightservealongprisonsentenceforhiscriminalactivity. @  _Vlez_Ԁtoldtheagentsthathedidnotwanttogotoprison,andthe   agentsasked_Vlez_Ԁifhewasinterestedincooperatingwiththem. H  _Vlez_ԀlateracceptedtheoffertocooperateandworkedwiththeFBI D asacooperatingwitnessfornearlytwomonthsuntilhewaskilled  intheearlymorningofMarch5,2003. L  ` OntheeveningofMarch4,2003,_Vlez_Ԁwasworkingwith H thedefendantagentstosetuplargescaletransactionsof  controlledsubstancesand/orfirearmsin_Guaynabo_,PuertoRico. P Theagentsinstalledavideocamerainthevan_Vlez_Ԁusedforthe L transactionandattachedarecordingdeviceto_Vlez_'sbody._Vlez_   remainedinconstantcommunicationwiththeagentsviathe T!" recordingdevice.Afteraboutfourhoursofcontactwiththegang #P$ members,includingDavid_G;mez_Ԅ_Olmeda_,_Vlez_Ԁrepeatedlystated $& throughthebodyrecordingdevicethathewastiredandwantedto X&!( leave.Shortlythereafter,_G;mez_,withoutwarning,shot_Vlez_ (T#*  approximatelyeighttimesatcloserangeandkilledhim. )%,  ` Intheircomplaint,plaintiffsaverthat_Vlez_'smurder   wasthedirectresultofthefailureofthedefendantagentsto \ followunspecifiedFBIandPuertoRicopoliceregulations,policies X anddirectivesinthehandlingofinformantsandwitnesses   cooperatingwiththegovernment.Inparticular,plaintiffscontend `  thattheagentswererecklessinfailingtoprotect_Vlez_,"because  \  theyleft[_Vlez_],byhimself,farawayfromthemselves."_Compl_.   21.PlaintiffsthusclaimeddamagespursuanttotheFifth d  AmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionaswellasArticleII, `  Sections8and10oftheConstitutionoftheCommonwealthofPuerto   RicoandthePuertoRicostatutorylawofnegligence,P.R.Laws h Ann.Tit.31,5141.   1       d  B.ProceduralHistory    ` TheindividualdefendantsandtheUnitedStatesmovedto  dismissboththestatelawandfederalconstitutionalclaims.With 4 respecttotheclaimsarisingunderPuertoRicostatutoryand 0 constitutionallaw,theUnitedStatesmovedtosubstituteitself   fortheindividualdefendantspursuanttoSection6ofthe_Westfall_ 8!" Act,28U.S.C.2679(d),bycertifyingthatthedefendantswere "4$ actingwithinthescopeoftheirfederalemployment.Atthesame $& time,theindividualdefendantsmovedtodismissthefederal  constitutionalclaimonthegroundsthatplaintiffs'complaintdid \ notstateaconstitutionalviolationand,alternatively,thatthe X officerswereentitledtoqualifiedimmunity.Plaintiffsdidnot   opposethemotiontodismiss.OnMarch25,2004,thedistrict `  courtissuedanopinionandorderdenyingthemotionfor  \  substitutionanddismissal.    ` Theissuesbeforeusinthisinterlocutoryappealare(1) d  whetherthedistrictcourterredbynotsubstitutingtheUnited `  Statesasthedefendantforplaintiffs'damagesclaimbasedon   PuertoRicolaw,and(2)whetherthedistrictcourterredin h denyingtheindividualagentsqualifiedimmunityfromthis_Bivens_ d claim;thisencompasses,asthefirstpartoftheimmunitytest,  whetheraconstitutionalclaimhasbeenstatedatall. l @88) II.  h  A.WestfallActSubstitution  0  ` Inthecasebelow,theUnitedStatescertifiedthatthe   individualdefendantswereactingwithinthescopeoftheirfederal T!" employmentandmovedtosubstituteitselffortheindividual #P$ defendantspursuanttoSection6ofthe_Westfall_ԀAct,28U.S.C. $& 2679(d). X&!(  ` "Underthe_Westfall_ԀAct,theAttorneyGeneralcancertify (T#* thatafederalemployeenamedasadefendantinacivilcasewas )%, 'actingwithinthescopeofhisofficeoremploymentatthetimeof \+&. theincident'thatservesasthebasisforatortclaimagainst  thatemployee."Lyonsv.Brown,158F.3d605,606(1stCir.1998) \ (quoting28U.S.C.2679(d)(1)).TheActprovidesthat"[_u]pon_ X certification...anycivilactionorproceedingcommencedupon   suchclaiminaUnitedStatesdistrictcourtshallbedeemedan `  actionagainsttheUnitedStates...andtheUnitedStatesshall  \  besubstitutedasthepartydefendant."28U.S.C.2679(d)(1).   WhilecertificationissufficienttosubstitutetheUnitedStates d  asdefendantanddismissthefederalemployeesfromthecase,the `  certificationis"provisionalandsubjecttojudicialreview."   _Davric_ԀMe.Corp.v.UnitedStatesPostalServ.,238F.3d58,65 h (1stCir.2001)(citing_Gutirrez_ԀdeMartnezv._Lamagno_,515U.S. d 417,434(1995)).Whereplaintiffsareabletoshowthatthe  employeesactedoutsidethescopeoftheiremployment,the l employeesmayberesubstitutedasthepartydefendants._Davric_, h 238F.3dat65;_Aversa_v.UnitedStates,99F.3d1200,1208(1st  Cir.1996). p   ` 1.Jurisdiction  !l"  ` Atthethreshold,plaintiffsappelleesarguethatthe "4$ UnitedStatesdoesnothavestandingtoappealthedistrictcourt's $& denialbecausetheUnitedStatesisnotapartytothesuitandhas <&!( notattemptedtointervene.Wedisagree.Inadditionto '8#* recognizing"anexceptiontotheonlyapartymayappealrulethat )$, allowsanonpartytoappealthedenialofamotiontointervene," @+&. MicrosystemsSoftware,Inc.v.ScandinaviaOnlineAB,226F.3d35,  40(1stCir.2000)(internalquotationmarksomitted),thiscourt \ andothershaveentertainedtheUnitedStates'righttoappeal X immediatelyfromordersdenyingWestfallActsubstitution.See,   e.g.,Lyons,158F.3dat60607(allowinginterlocutoryappealof `  districtcourtorderdenying_Westfall_ԀActsubstitutionbroughtby  \  boththeUnitedStatesandtheindividualdefendant);Taboasv.   Mlynczak,149F.3d576,579(7thCir.1998)(treatingWestfallAct d  immunityinthesamefashionasqualifiedimmunityinfederalcivil `  rightsactions,denialsofwhicharecustomarilysubjectto   immediateinterlocutoryappeal). h  ` Plaintiffsalsoarguethatthedistrictcourt'sorder d denyingsubstitutionisnotyetripeforappealbecausethe  governmentscertificationisnotconclusiveandplaintiffsrequire l discoverytochallengethecertification. h  ` Whileweagreethatthegovernment'scertificationis  subjecttojudicialreviewsuchthattheindividualagentsmightbe p  laterreinstatedasdefendantsinthiscase,seeDavric,238F.3d !l" at65;_Aversa_,99F.3dat1208,thisdoesnotalterthefactthat "$ theinitialstep"[_u]pon_Ԁcertification"isthat"anycivilaction t$& orproceedingcommenced...in...districtcourtshallbe  &p!( deemedanactionagainsttheUnitedStates...andtheUnited '#* Statesshallbesubstitutedasthepartydefendant."28U.S.C. x)$, 2679(d)(1). $+t&.  ` Plaintiffscontendthattheword"shall"in28U.S.C.  2679(d)(1),isnotmandatory,citing_Gutirrez_ԀdeMartnez,515 \ U.S.at432n.9,whichindicatesinafootnotethattheterm X "shall"issometimesusedtomean"may."Thisreferencebythe   SupremeCourt,however,merelyexplainsthatthecertificationdoes `  not"conclusivelyestablishascorrectthesubstitutionofthe  \  UnitedStatesasdefendantinplaceoftheemployee."Id.at434.   In_Gutirrez_ԀdeMartnez,theSupremeCourt,inadivideddecision, d  determinedthattheAttorneyGeneral'scertificationisnot `  conclusiveandthatdistrictcourtsmayreviewthecertificationof   scopeofemploymentinlightofplaintiffs'objections.Thisis h notirreconcilablewiththeprocessthathasbeenestablishedby d thecourtsthattheUnitedStatesisinitiallysubstitutedupon  certification,andthedefendantsmayberesubstitutedlaterif l thecourtdeterminesthattheywerenotactingwithinthescopeof h theirfederalemployment.   ` Plaintiffs'statedintenttochallengethefilingand p  serviceofacertificationintheappropriateform,andtheirneed !l" fordiscoverytomountthischallengeareirrelevanttothis "$ interlocutoryappeal.TheUnitedStatesandindividualdefendants t$& challengethesubstanceofthedistrictcourt'sdenialofthe  &p!( initialsubstitutionoftheUnitedStatesuponcertification,as '#* providedforin2679(d)(1).Thepossibilitythatthedistrict x)$, courtmaylaterdeterminethatafederalemployeewasacting $+t&. outsidethescopeofhisorheremployment,contrarytothe  government'scertificationandshouldbe"resubstituted,"hasno \ bearingonthefactthatthedistrictcourtshouldhaveinitially X substitutedtheUnitedStatesasdefendant"[_u]pon_Ԁcertification."   Id. `   ` Forthesereasons,wefindthattheUnitedStateshas  \  standingtoappealthedenialofWestfallActsubstitutionalong   withtheindividualdefendants. d   ` 2.Merits  `   ` Thedistrictcourtdeniedthemotiontosubstitutethe ( UnitedStatesonthebasisofitsconclusionthatanexceptionto  substitutionappliedinthiscasebecausetheplaintiffsasserted 0 aBivenscauseofactionunderthefederalConstitution,in , additiontothestatelawclaims.Wefindthatthefactthatthis  caseraisesbothstatelawandfederalconstitutionalclaimsdoes 4 notrenderinapplicablethe_Westfall_ԀAct'srequirementforthe 0 substitutionoftheUnitedStatesforthedefendantswithrespect   tothestatelawclaims. 8!"  ` Section5ofthe_Westfall_ԀAct,28U.S.C.2679(b), "4$ providesthattheremedyagainsttheUnitedStatesunderthe $& FederalTortClaimsAct(_FTCA_)for"personalinjuryordeath <&!( arisingorresultingfromthenegligentorwrongfulactoromission '8#* ofanyemployeeoftheGovernmentwhileactingwithinthescopeof )$, hisofficeoremploymentisexclusiveofanyothercivilactionor @+&. proceedingformoneydamagesbyreasonofthesamesubjectmatter"  andshall"preclude[]"anyotherdamagesaction"arisingoutofor \ relatingtothesamesubjectmatter."28U.S.C.2679(b)(1) X (emphasesadded).ThesecondparagraphofSection5thenprovides   twoexceptionstotheexclusivenessoftheremedyandpreclusionof `  otherdamagesuits,includingthat"[_p]aragraph_Ԁ(1)doesnotextend  \  orapplytoacivilactionagainstanemployeeoftheGovernment   ...whichisbroughtforaviolationoftheConstitutionofthe d  UnitedStates."Id.at2679(b)(2). `   ` Thisexceptionforfederalconstitutionalviolations,   however,appliesonlytoparagraph(1)ofSection5,id.2679 h (b)(1),andnottotheprovisionforsubstitutionoftheUnited d States"[_u]pon_ԀcertificationbytheAttorneyGeneral,"which  appearsin2679(d).Indeed,courtsroutinelyorder_Westfall_ԀAct l substitutionoftheUnitedStatesasthedefendantforstatelaw h claimswhenbothstatelawandfederalconstitutionaldamageclaims  areassertedagainstfederalemployees.See,e.g.,_Davric_,238 p  F.3dat65(affirming_Westfall_ԀActsubstitutiononlyastostate !l" lawclaimswhereplaintiffalsoasserted_Bivens_claimsagainst "$  federalemployee);_Aversa_,99F.3dat1206(same). t$&  ` Thus,wefindthatthedistrictcourt'sfailuretomake  apartialsubstitutionoftheUnitedStatesaspartydefendantas \ tothestatelawclaimswaserror._0   2      _ X  B._Bivens_claim     ` Theindividualagentscontendthatthedistrictcourt |  shouldhavedismissedplaintiffs'federal_Bivens_claimagainstthe ( x  agentsbecausetheindividualagentsareentitledtoqualified $  immunity.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).Wereviewthedenialof   amotiontodismissdenovo,assumingplaintiffs'allegationsare ,|  trueandmakingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe ( plaintiffs.See_Garrett_v.TandyCorp.,295F.3d94,97(1stCir.  2002). 0  ` 1.Jurisdiction  ,  ` Beforereachingthemerits,however,wemustconsiderthe  thresholdissueofjurisdiction.Thiscourtwouldnotnormally P haveinterlocutoryjurisdictionoverthedistrictcourt'sdenialof L themotiontodismissforfailuretostateaconstitutional   violationbecauseitisnota"finaldecision"inthesense T!" requiredby28U.S.C.1291(conferringappellatejurisdiction #P$ over"finaldecisions"ofthedistrictcourts).Thisissue, $& however,isthefirstquestioncourtsmustanswerwhenconsidering  aclaimqualifiedimmunity.Wewill,therefore,addressthisissue \ inourqualifiedimmunityanalysis. X  ` Appellatecourtshavejurisdictionoverinterlocutory   appealsfromdenialsofqualifiedimmunitywhere"thedenialrests `  onpurelylegalquestionsandnotondisputedissuesoffact."  \  _Riverdale_ԀMillsCorp.v._Pimpare_,392F.3d55,60(1stCir.2004).   "TheSupremeCourthasheldthatthedenialofa_dispositive_Ԁmotion d  bottomedonqualifiedimmunitycannotsupportaninterlocutory `  appealifthecontrollingquestionis'whetherornotthepretrial   recordsetsforthagenuineissueoffactfortrial.'"_Camilo_Ԅ h _Robles_v.Zapata,175F.3d41,45(1stCir.1999)(quotingJohnson d v.Jones,515U.S.304,31920(1995)).However,wherethe  "operativequestionispurelylegalinnature,"thedenialofa l profferedqualifiedimmunitydefenseremainsimmediatelyappealable h asacollateralorder._Camilo_Ԅ_Robles_v._Hoyos_,151F.3d1,8(1st  Cir.1998)(citingJohnson,515U.S.at319);accordStellav. p  Kelley,63F.3d71,74(1stCir.1995). !l"  ` Plaintiffscontendthattheindividualdefendantsdonot "$ havestandingtoappealthedistrictcourt'sdenialofdefendants' t$& motiontodismissbecausethedistrictcourtfoundthatmaterial  &p!( questionsoffactremainontheissueofwhetherthedefendants '#* shouldbegrantedqualifiedimmunity.Thedistrictcourt x)$, determinedthatthereisadisputedfactualissueastowhether $+t&. defendants'actionsweresufficientlyrecklesstorisetothelevel  ofaconstitutionalviolationandthusdeclinedtograntqualified \ immunitywithoutfurtherfactfinding. X  ` Defendantsappealthedistrictcourt'srejectionoftheir   argumentthat,asamatteroflaw,thefactsallegedbythe `  plaintiffscannotamounttoaviolationofsubstantivedueprocess  \  underclearlyestablishedlaw.Inotherwords,defendants   appellantsframetheissueofwhetherplaintiffshavestateda d  claimuponwhichreliefmaybegrantedasapurelylegalrather `  thanfactualissue.Wethereforefindthatappellatejurisdiction   existsoverthequalifiedimmunityissue. h  ` 2.Merits  d  ` Thejustificationforthequalifiedimmunitydoctrineis , that"publicofficialsperformingdiscretionaryfunctionsshouldbe  freetoactwithoutfearofretributivesuitsfordamagesexcept 4 whentheyshouldhaveunderstoodthatparticularconductwas 0 unlawful."_Limone_v._Condon_,372F.3d39,44(1stCir.2004).   Thus,theSupremeCourthasheldthatqualifiedimmunity"isan 8!" immunityfromsuitratherthanameredefensetoliability"and"it "4$ iseffectivelylostifacaseiserroneouslypermittedtogoto $& trial."Mitchellv.Forsyth,472U.S.511,526(1985). <&!(  ` Determiningwhetherofficialsareentitledtoqualified '8#* immunityinvolvesathreeparttest.SeeRivera_Jimnez_v. )$, _Pierluisi_,362F.3d87,93(1stCir.2004).First,wemustask: @+&. "'Takeninthelightmostfavorabletothepartyassertingthe  injury,dothefactsallegedshowtheofficer'sconductviolateda \ constitutionalright?'"_Riverdale_ԀMillsCorp.v._Pimpare_,392F.3d X 55,61(1stCir.2004)(quotingSaucierv.Katz,533U.S.194,201   (2001)).Second,weask"'whethertherightwasclearly `  establishedatthetimeoftheallegedviolation'suchthata  \  reasonableofficerwould'beonnoticethat[his]conduct[was]   unlawful.'"Id.(quoting_Suboh_v.Dist.Attorney'sOffice,298 d  F.3d81,90(1stCir.2002))(bracketsinoriginal).Finally,we `  mustdetermine"whethera'reasonableofficer,similarlysituated,   wouldunderstandthatthechallengedconductviolated'theclearly h establishedrightatissue."Id.(quoting_Suboh_,298F.3dat90). d  ` Defendants'qualifiedimmunitydefensewasbrought  pursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6)inamotion l forfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted.The h qualifiedimmunityanalysismust,therefore,bebasedsolelyonthe  factsstatedinplaintiffs'complaint._Riverdale_ԀMills,392F.3d p  at61. !l"  ` Atthethreshold,weconsiderwhethertheallegations, "$ takeninthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiffs,couldsupport t$& aconclusionthattheindividualagentsviolated_Vlez_'s  &p!( constitutionalrights.Atthisstageoftheinquiry,"courtsmust '#* notdefinetherelevantconstitutionalrightinoverlygeneral x)$, terms,lesttheystripthequalifiedimmunitydefenseofall $+t&. meaning."_Butera_v.DistrictofColumbia,235F.3d637,64650  (D.C.Cir.2001)(citingAndersonv._Creighton_,483U.S.635,639 \ (1987)). X  ` Plaintiffsallegedthat_Vlez_'smurderwasadirect   resultofdefendants'failuretofollowunspecifiedFBIandlocal `  policeregulationsconcerningthehandlingofinformantsand  \  witnessescooperatingwiththegovernment.Thus,plaintiffs   asserteda_Bivens_claimallegingaviolationofFifthAmendment d  substantivedueprocess.Defendantscounteredthattherecanbeno `  DueProcessviolationwhenthegovernmentfailstoprotectan   individualfromprivateviolenceand,therefore,the_Bivens_claim h shouldbedismissed.Thedistrictcourtacknowledgedthat d "negligentorevenwilfullyrecklessstateactionwillnotcreate  aconstitutionalviolationwhenthegovernmentwasonlycausally l connectedtotheharm."_Vlez_Ԅ_Daz_v.Vega_Irizarry_,No.041773, h slipop.at10(_D.P.R._ԀMar25,2004)(citing_Monahan_v.Dorchester  CounselingCtr.,Inc.,961F.2d987,993(1stCir.1992)). p  Nevertheless,thedistrictcourtconcludedthatplaintiffs !l" sufficientlypledaviolationofsubstantivedueprocessbasedon "$ thecourt'sviewthattheagentsfailedtoprotectVlezafter t$& theiractionsandomissionsrenderedhim"morevulnerableto  &p!( peril."Id. '#*  ` TheDueProcessClauseappliesonlytogovernmental x)$, deprivationsoflife,liberty,orpropertyandthusprovidesno $+t&. guaranteeofgovernmentprotectionfromharmscausedbyprivate  parties.SeeU.S.Const.amend.V.("Nopersonshall...be \ deprivedoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessof X law.").Thiscourthasheldthattoestablishasubstantivedue   processclaimplaintiffsmustfirstestablishadeprivationofa `  "protectedinterest"inlife,liberty,orproperty.Riverav.  \  RhodeIsland,402F.3d27,3334(1stCir.2005);accordWashington   v._Glucksberg_,521U.S.702,722(1997)(findingidentificationof d  afundamentalrightisa"thresholdrequirement"inestablishinga `  dueprocessviolation).Inthiscase,_Vlez_'srelativesallege   that_Vlez_Ԁwasdeprivedofhislifeasaresultoftheagents' h inaction,and_Vlez_'slifeisaprotectedinterest. d  ` Plaintiffsmustalsoshowthatthedeprivationofthe  protectedrightwascausedbygovernmentconduct.Itiswell l settledthatthedueprocessprovisionoftheFifthAmendment h servesasalimitationonlyongovernmental,notprivate,action.  See_Gerena_v.P.R.Legal_Servs_.,Inc.,697F.2d447,449(1stCir. p  1983)(citingPub._Utils_._Comm'n_v._Pollak_,343U.S.451,461 !l" (1952)).Whenagovernmentofficialhimselfinflictsharmuponan "$ individualorhisproperty,thatactioncanconstitutea t$& deprivationofaprotectedinterestiftheofficial'sconduct  &p!( shockstheconscience.SeeMartnezv.Col;n,54F.3d980,986 '#* (1stCir.1995)("Tobesure,violenceisattributabletostate x)$, actioniftheperpretratorisactingundercolorofstatelaw."); $+t&. cf.Cummingsv._McIntire_,271F.3d341,34447(1stCir.2001)  (unnecessaryandhardshovewithabusivelanguagebyofficernot \ conscienceshockingabsentintenttoharm).Inthiscase,however, X thepersonwhoshot_Vlez_Ԁwasclearlyaprivateactor.    ` Nevertheless,inscenariosinwhichgovernmentofficials `  activelydirectorassistprivateactorsincausingharmtoan  \  individual,somecourtshavetreatedthegovernment'sinvolvement   asamountingtogovernmentconduct.Forexample,"ifthepolice d  hadhanded[_G;mez_]thegunwithinstructiontoshoot[_Vlez_],cf. `  _Hemphill_v._Schott_,141F.3d412,41819(2dCir.1998),orassured   [_G;mez_]thathecouldattack[_Vlez_]withimpunity,cf._Dwares_v. h CityofNewYork,985F.2d94,9697(2dCir.1993),"theseactions d mayconstitutegovernmentconduct.Rivera,402F.3dat34.In  suchscenarios,thegovernmentofficialsandtheprivateactorare l essentially"joint_tortfeasors_,andtherefore,mayincurshared h constitutionalresponsibility."Martnezv._Col;n_,54F.3d980,  985n.4(1stCir.1995).However,thereisnoclaimofsuchjoint p  enterprisehere.Inthiscase,plaintiffsclaimthatthe !l" governmentinvolvementwasacreationofriskandthenafailureto "$ protectagainstthatrisk. t$&  ` Outsidecontextsinwhichtheactionofgovernment  &p!( officials(ortheirjoint_tortfeasors_)injurecitizens,thiscourt '#* hasbeencarefultolimitsubstantivedueprocesstotheparameters x)$, articulatedbytheSupremeCourtin_DeShaney_v._Winnebago_ԀCounty $+t&. DepartmentofSocialServices,489U.S.189,197(1989).There,  theSupremeCourtstatedthat"[_a]s_Ԁageneralmatter...a \ State'sfailuretoprotectanindividualagainstprivateviolence X simplydoesnotconstituteaviolationoftheDueProcessClause."   Id.at197. `   ` The_DeShaney_Courtalsorecognizedalimitedexceptionto  \  thisrulewhichappliestocircumstancesinwhichthegovernment   hasa"specialrelationship"withtheindividualbecausegovernment d  actionhasdeprivedthatindividualofthelibertyneededto `  protecthimself.Id.at200.Insuchsituationsaconstitutional   dutytoprotectmayarise."Theaffirmativedutytoprotectarises h notfromtheState'sknowledgeoftheindividual'spredicamentor d fromitsexpressionsofintenttohelphim,butfromthelimitation  whichithasimposedonhisfreedomtoactonhisownbehalf."Id. l "Thiscourthasrecognizedthatthis[special]relationship,and h thusaconstitutionalduty,mayexistwhentheindividualis  incarceratedorisinvoluntarilycommittedtothecustodyofthe p  state."Rivera,402F.3dat34(citing_Monahan_,961F.2dat991 !l" 92). "$  ` Plaintiffsinthiscase,however,havenotidentifieda t$& custodialrelationshipbetween_Vlez_Ԁandtheagentsthat  &p!( constitutesa"specialrelationship"creatinganaffirmative '#* constitutionaldutytoprotect._Vlez_Ԁwasnotincustodyor x)$, involuntarilycommittedwhilehewasactingasaninformantforthe $+t&. federalagents,butratherwasfreetodeclinetocooperatefurther  withtheagentsatanypoint. \  ` Inadditiontothespecial"custodial"relationships,the X DeShaneyCourtsuggested,butneverexpresslyrecognized,the   possibilitythatliabilitymightarisewherethestatecreatesor `  substantiallycontributestothecreationofadanger.  \  Specifically,theSupremeCourtstatedthat"[w]hiletheStatemay   havebeenawareofthedangers...itplayednopartintheir d  creation,nordiditdoanythingtorenderhimmorevulnerableto `  them."DeShaney,489U.S.at201(emphasisadded).    ` Mostofthecircuitcourtshavenowacknowledgedthatthe h existenceofaconstitutionalviolationispossible,onparticular d facts,undera"statecreateddanger"theoryofliability.See  Butera,235F.3dat64851(joiningothercircuits"inholding l that,undertheStateendangermentconcept,anindividualcan h assertasubstantivedueprocessrighttoprotectionby[state]  fromthirdpartyviolencewhen[state]officialsaffirmativelyact p  toincreaseorcreatethedangerthatultimatelyresultsinthe !l" individual'sharm").See,e.g.,Kallstromv.CityofColumbus,136 "$ F.3d1055,106667(6thCir.1998)(holdingthattheCityof t$& Columbus'sreleaseofinformationfromundercoverofficers'files  &p!( todefensecounsel,whichsubstantiallyincreasedthevulnerability '#* oftheofficerstoprivateactsofvengeance,createda x)$, constitutionallycognizablestatecreateddanger);Woodv. $+t&. Ostrander,879F.2d583,58990(9thCir.1989)(holdingthat  plaintiffraisedagenuinefactualdisputewhetherstatetrooper \ deprivedherofaconstitutionallibertyinterestbyabandoning X her,afterimpoundinghervehicle,atnightinahighcrimearea,   resultinginherrapebyastrangerfromwhomsheacceptedaride). `   ` TheFifthCircuit,however,hasflatlyrejectedthe  \  "statecreateddanger"theoryofliability.See_Beltrn_v.Cityof   ElPaso,367F.3d299,307(5thCir.2004). d   ` "Thiscourthas,todate,discussedthestatecreated `  dangertheory,butneverfounditactionableonthefactsalleged."   Rivera,402F.3dat35(collectingcases).W   3       h  ` Indeterminingwhether_Vlez_'srelativeshaveallegeda d substantivedueprocessviolation,wekeepinmindthat"inastate  creationofrisksituation,wheretheultimateharmiscausedbya l thirdparty,'courtsmustbecarefultodistinguishbetween h  conventionaltortsandconstitutionalviolations,aswellas  betweenstateinactionandaction."Id.at36(quotingSotov.  Flores,103F.3d1056,1064(1stCir.1997)). \   ` Weholdthatplaintiffshavenotallegedfactstosupport X aclaimbasedonthestatecreateddangertheory.Plaintiffs'   theorymaybethatthegovernmentowesadutytoallcooperating `  witnessestoprotectthemfromharm.Therearerisksinherentin  \  beingacooperatingwitness,butthestatedoesnotcreatethose   dangers,othersdo,andthewitnessvoluntarilyassumesthose d  risks.SeeSummarv.Bennett,157F.3d1054,1059&n.2(6thCir. `  1998).    ` Weleaveopenthequestionwhether,nonetheless,the h statemayviolatesubstantivedueprocessastocooperating d witnessesifittakescertainactions,suchassendinga  cooperatingwitnesstowhatthestateknowswouldbehiscertain l death.Suchactionmayshocktheconsciencebydemonstrating h "deliberateindifference."SeeButera,235F.3dat652.Thiscase  doesnotcomeclose.Thereisnoallegationthegovernmentknew p  Vlezwouldbemurdered.Atmost,theallegationisthatVlez !l" saidthathewastired,notthathesaidhewasunderimminent "$ risk.Theattempttoshowasubstantivedueprocessviolation t$& basedonaclaimthatsomeyetunknownregulationrequiredthe  &p!( statetopromptlyremove"tired"cooperatingwitnessesfails. '#*  ` Plaintiffshavethereforefailedtocarrytheirburden x)$, underthethresholdinquiryforqualifiedimmunity.Absenta $+t&. showingthattheagents'conductviolatedaconstitutionalright,  qualifiedimmunityapplies. \ @( III.  X  ` Forthereasonsstated,theorderofthedistrictcourt   isreversedandthecaseisremandedforfurtherproceedings |  consistentwiththisopinion. ( x   ` ReversedandRemanded.  $