Court Opinion

ID: 2964884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:35.437988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.763038
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 97-1370

                          MANUEL GONZALEZ-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                              _________________________

               Jesus  Hernandez Sanchez and  Hernandez Sanchez Law  Firm on
               ________________________      ___________________________
          brief for appellants.
               Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,  Guillermo Gil,
               _______________                               _____________
          United  States Attorney, Robert S. Greenspan  and E. Roy Hawkens,
                                   ___________________      ______________
          Attorneys, Appellate Staff, United States Department of  Justice,
          and Jacklyn L. Ringhausen, Associate Field Counsel, United States
              _____________________
          Department  of  Housing  and  Urban  Development,  on  brief  for
          appellee.

                              _________________________

                                  September 12, 1997

                              _________________________

                    Per Curiam.  The plaintiffs  in this case, most of whom
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          are   former  employees  of   the  Puerto  Rico   Public  Housing

          Administration  (PRPHA), have been struggling since 1992 first to

          block, and now to secure  money damages for, the privatization of

          certain aspects  of the public  housing program in  Puerto Rico.1

          Their current initiative  represents an effort to  obtain damages

          under the Federal  Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28  U.S.C.    1346(b),

          2671-2680 (1994).   When the United States  Department of Housing

          and Urban  Development (HUD)  denied their  timely administrative

          claim,  28  U.S.C.    2675,  the  plaintiffs  filed suit  in  the

          district court and later amended their complaint.  The government

          responded  by filing  a motion  for dismissal.   On  February 25,

          1997,  the  district  court  dismissed  the  plaintiffs'  amended

          complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction.  See Gonzalez-
                                                              ___ _________

          Figueroa v. United  States, No. 94-2761,  1997 WL 117750  (D.P.R.
          ________    ______________

          Feb. 25, 1997).  This appeal ensued.

                    We have  carefully read the parties'  briefs, evaluated

          their legal arguments, and  studied the papers in  the case.   We

          conclude, on whole-record review, that this is a suitable case in

          which to act upon  our long-held belief that "when  a lower court

          produces a  comprehensive, well-reasoned  decision, an  appellate

          court should refrain from writing at length to no  other end than

          to  hear its  own words  resonate."   Lawton  v. State  Mut. Life
                                                ______     ________________

          Assur. Co. of Am.,  101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir.  1996); accord In
          _________________                                       ______ __
                              
          ____________________

               1The underlying facts  are limned in  an earlier opinion  of
          this court.   See Acevedo-Villalobos  v. Hernandez, 22  F.3d 384,
                        ___ __________________     _________
          385 (1st Cir. 1994).

                                          2

          re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36,  38 (1st
          __________________________________________

          Cir. 1993).  Hence, we  affirm the judgment for substantially the

          reasons  set  forth  in  the  lower  court's  discussion  of  the

          discretionary  function exception  to the  FTCA.   See  Gonzalez-
                                                             ___  _________

          Figueroa, 1997 WL 117750, at *5-7.  We add only a small coda.
          ________

                    It is not our role to pass judgment upon the wisdom (or

          lack of wisdom) of  the housing policies which PRPHA and HUD have

          decided  to follow.   Rather, our  role, in  the context  of this

          appeal, is  to determine  only  whether HUD  (the federal  agency

          involved)  had  the   statutory  authority  to  enter   into  the

          challenged  agreement with PRPHA and whether  it acted within the

          realm of  its discretion when  it exercised that authority.   See
                                                                        ___

          Magee v. United  States, No. 96-2357, 1997 WL 419551,  at *3 (1st
          _____    ______________

          Cir. July 31, 1997).  Because these questions must be answered in

          the affirmative,2 for the reasons already elucidated by the court

          below, the FTCA's  discretionary function exception, 28  U.S.C.  

          2680(a), bars  the maintenance  of the  plaintiffs' action.   See
                                                                        ___

          Magee, 1997 WL 419551,  at *3.  After all, a  complaint under the
          _____

          FTCA  cannot survive a  motion to dismiss if  it alleges only the

          sort of statutory conduct that  is plainly grounded in the policy

          imperatives  of  an  applicable regulatory  regime.    See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          States v.  Gaubert,  499 U.S.  315, 324-25  (1991); Berkovitz  v.
          ______     _______                                  _________

                              
          ____________________

               2We have considered and  rejected, as a matter  of statutory
          interpretation,  the plaintiffs' argument that, under 42 U.S.C.  
          1437d(j)(3)(A),  the Secretary  of HUD  was  required to  declare
          PRPHA  in "substantial default" before entering into an agreement
          that permits privatization.  The  text of the statute simply will
          not bear the weight that the plaintiffs load upon it.

                                          3

          United States,  486 U.S.  531, 536-37,  (1988); United  States v.
          _____________                                   ______________

          Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 814 (1984).
          ______________

                    In  any event, as  the district court  also recognized,

          Gonzalez-Figueroa,  1997  WL  117750,  at *4,  the  absence  of a
          _________________

          comparable cause of action against a private individual precludes

          FTCA liability here.

                    We need go no further.  The judgment below is summarily

          affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                     ___

                    Affirmed.  No Costs.
                    Affirmed.  No Costs.
                    ________   ________

                                          4