Court Opinion

ID: 2963790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:14.717515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:32.926030
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 20, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1365

                                 EDWIN OCASIO-APONTE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             JOSE ARIEL NAZARIO, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Watson,* Senior Judge, and
                                       ____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge.
                                     ____________________

                                 ____________________

            Francisco J. Rodriguez Juarbe on brief for appellant.
            _____________________________
            Carlos  Lugo-Fiol,  Solicitor  General,  Jacqueline  Novas-Debien,
            _________________                        ________________________
        Deputy Solicitor General,  Lorraine J.  Riefkohl, Assistant  Solicitor
                                   _____________________
        General, Department of Justice, Jose  Carlos  Garcia-Selva and  Sigrid
                                        __________________________      ______
        Lopez-Gonzalez Law Offices, on brief for appellees.
        __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

        _______________________
        *Of the  United  States  Court  of  International  Trade,  sitting  by
        designation.

                 Per  Curiam.     Appellant  Ocasio-Aponte  appeals   the
                 ___________

            dismissal of his action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.   1983, by the

            United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico,

            on the ground that  his complaint was time barred  because it

            had  not been filed within the applicable one year statute of

            limitations period.  We affirm.

                 Ocasio-Aponte's action arising out of the termination of

            his government employment was filed in federal court on April

            23, 1992.   Although his alleged injury occurred in 1988, the

            parties agree that the statute of limitations had been tolled

            by an action filed in the Commonwealth Supreme Court in 1989.

            This action was dismissed  by the Commonwealth Superior Court

            for failure to exhaust  administrative remedies.  The Supreme

            Court  of  Puerto  Rico  subsequently  denied Aponte-Ocasio's

            petition  for review  and  motion for  reconsideration.   The

            parties were notified of the court's denial of the motion for

            reconsideration on  April  22, 1991.   The  Supreme Court  of

            Puerto Rico issued its  mandate to the Superior Court  on May

            1, 1991.

                 The sole  question  in this  case  is when  the  tolling

            period ended.  According  to Ocasio-Aponte the tolling period

            lasted  until  mandate issued;  according  to  appellees, the

            period lasted only  until the parties were  notified on April

            22, 1992, of the court's denial of Aponte-Ocasio's motion for

            reconsideration.  Both parties  agree that the instant action

            is  time barred if, but only  if, the tolling period ended on

            or before April 22, 1991.

                 State law,  here the  law of  Puerto Rico,  controls the

            question  of the duration of  the tolling period.   Wilson v.
                                                                ______

            Garcia, 471  U.S. 261,  269 (1985);  Gonsalves v.  Flynn, 981
            ______                               _________     _____

            F.2d 45, 47  (1st Cir. 1992).   As  the district court  held,

            under Puerto Rico law, the tolling period ends when the court

            enters a final judgment.  Duran Cepeda v. Morales Lebron, 112
                                      ____________    ______________

            D.P.R. 623, 12 Official  Translations 776, 785 (1982); Fresh-
                                                                   ______

            O-Baking Co. v. Molinos  de Puerto Rico, 103 P.R.R.  707, 717
            ___________     _______________________

            (1975).  A judgment is final, at the latest, when it has been

            "rendered  and  notified  with the  proper  legal formality,"

            Sanchez v. Municipality  of Cayey, 94  P.R.R. 89, 96  (1967).
            _______    ______________________

            Finality is not dependent on the date on which mandate issues

            to the lower court.  See Dominguez v. Fabian, 36  P.R.R. 509,
                                 ___ _________    ______

            511 (1927)  (judgment final,  for purposes of  taking appeal,

            from  date rendered  and filed  with court  not from  date on

            which mandate issues).

                 Under Puerto Rico law,  a final judgment in  the instant

            case was rendered, at the latest, on April  22, 1991; for, on

            that date, the parties  received formal notification from the

            Puerto  Rico  Supreme Court  that Ocasio-Aponte's  motion for

            reconsideration  had been  denied.   As  of  April 22,  1991,

            therefore, the tolling period  was at an end and  the statute

            of  limitations  began to  run  anew.   Rodriguez  Narvaez v.
                                                    __________________

                                         -3-

            Nazario, 895 F.2d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 1990).   Since the present
            _______

            action  was  filed more  than one  year  from this  date, the

            district court was correct in finding it time barred.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -4-