Court Opinion

ID: 2964173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:43.079625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:14.490400
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 24, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2230

                              SIGFRIDO TORRES LAZARINI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                 [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rafael A. Oliveras Lopez De Victoria on brief for appellant.
            ____________________________________
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del
            _____________                               ______________________
        Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ___

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  After careful review of the briefs and
                      __________

            the record, we conclude that there is no substantial question

            presented  in this  appeal  and that  summary disposition  is

            appropriate.   The  district court correctly  determined that

            plaintiff's  claim  was  time-barred,  and we  add  only  the

            following comments.

                 Although plaintiff's 1990 claim  may have been timely as

            to those few incidents occurring in 1989  and 1990, plaintiff

            did  not identify any of  those more recent  incidents as the

            cause of significant  harm.  Accordingly,  in the context  of

            this appeal,  we  do not  consider  them to  be  individually

            actionable torts  that should survive the government's motion

            to dismiss.  

                 In  any case, plaintiff does not appear to state a claim

            based  on  any  individual  incidents; instead,  as  we  read

            plaintiff's complaint and other filings, his underlying claim

            is one  of  institutional discrimination  manifesting  itself

            from  time to time since  1953 in various  actions by various

            Veterans  Administration personnel.   Such  a claim  might be

            timely under  the  Federal  Tort  Claims  Act,  28  U.S.C.   

            2401(b),  if the  claim alleged  a "continuing  tort" and  at

            least  one  tortious  action  occurred within  the  statutory

            limitations  period.    See,  e.g., Havens  Realty  Corp.  v.
                                    __________  _____________________

            Coleman, 455  U.S. 363, 380-81 (1982);  Johnson v. Rodriguez,
            _______                                 _______    _________

            943 F.2d 104,  108 (1st  Cir. 1991), cert.  denied, 502  U.S.
                                                 _____________

                                         -2-

            1063  (1992);  Page v.  United States,  729 F.2d  818, 818-19
                           ____     _____________

            (D.C.  Cir. 1984); Gross v. United States, 676 F.2d 295, 299-
                               _____    _____________

            300 (8th Cir. 1982).  

                 We agree with the  district court that plaintiff's claim

            cannot  be  characterized as  a  "continuing  tort," in  that

            plaintiff made  no cognizable  showing of any  relation among

            the various acts complained of, even assuming that those acts

            were tortious.   Plaintiff's own unsupported speculation  and

            improbable  inference  about  the  VA's "plan"  to  deny  him

            treatment and  benefits was  not sufficient to  withstand the

            government's motion for summary judgment.   See Mack v. Great
                                                        ___ ____    _____

            Atlantic  & Pacific Tea Co.,  871 F.2d 179,  182-83 (1st Cir.
            ___________________________

            1989)  (mere   vague  references   concerning  a   policy  of

            discrimination  are  not  sufficient);  Medina-Munoz  v. R.J.
                                                    ____________     ____

            Reynolds  Tobacco  Co.,  896  F.2d  5,  8  (1st   Cir.  1990)
            ______________________

            (similar).  Therefore, plaintiff's complaint based on all the

            events  stretching back over  more than  forty years  was not

            timely filed, and the district court properly granted summary

            judgment for the government.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -3-