◆ SpookStack

~~ 8 rtm @ . = OPINION OF ‘TILE COURT. 11 By asserting in her brief that ‘‘[Jajuga’s] actions in supplying Maiorana with drugs, money and guns may have contributed to the circumstances bringing about [Maio- rana’s] death,’’ the plaintiff has attempted ‘‘to build a ease on the gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation and conjecture.’”? Manganaro v. Delaval Separator Co., 309 ¥.2d 389, 393 (1st Cir. 1962). Even if Jajuga had engaged in the misconduct alleged by the plaintiff, there was no - indication that it brought about the shooting of Maiorana by the others. Cf. Palmer v. Hall, 517 F.2d 705, 708-19 (5th Cir. 1975) (judgment against mayor reversed for in- sufficient evidence that his ‘‘shoot to kill’? statements caused a police officer to shoot the plaintiff). In the ab- ‘sence of a genuine issue as to Jajuga’s involvement in the shooting, summary judgment was warranted. See Simms v. Reiner, 419 F. Supp. 468, 474-75 (N.D. IIL 1976) ; Rich- ardson v. Snow, 340 F. Supp. 1261, 1262-63 (D. Md. 1972) -(police- chiefs not. involved in shootings held entitled to- - summary judgment). Cf. Kostka v. Hogg, supra, 560 F.2d at 40-41; Delaney v. Dias, supra, 415 F. Supp. at 1353-55 (police chiefs held entitled to dismissals .due to insufficient allegations of their involvement in subordinates’ mis- conduct). , a A more difficult question is whether summary judgment should have been granted Long, Guilmette, Scire, and Mac- Donald. All. participated in the events leading up to and including the fatal shooting. Their affidavits indicate that _Long.took the lead and chose the moment of arrest. Each - of the others, by his own admission, fired his gun at the decedent. In addressing the liability of these defendants, we bear in mind that ‘‘police officers . .. must often act swiftly and plaintiff’s case against Jajuga, in light-of the ample information the officers at the scene had from other sourees that Maiorana was armed and dangerous. - lla - ee retenes ae .