U.S v. Moore
Case Date: 06/15/1993
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 91-2062
|
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 91-2062 ANGEL SIERRA-SERPA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MANUEL MARTINEZ, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges. _____________________ ____________________ Carlos V. Garcia Gutierez with whom Guillermo J. Ramos Luina was _________________________ ________________________ on brief for appellant. Carlos Lugo Fiol, Assistant Solicitor General, Department of __________________ Justice, with whom Reina Colon De Rodriguez, Acting Solicitor General, ________________________ was on brief for appellees. ____________________ June 15, 1993 ____________________ Per Curiam. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico ___________ issued its opinion and a judgment on February 5, 1993, Sierra-Serpa v. Martinez, No. CT-92-344 (P.R. Feb. 5, 1993), ____________ ________ responding to the question certified by this court on May 27, 1992. See Sierra-Serpa v. Martinez, 966 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. ___ ____________ ________ 1992). The sole issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff's 1983 action was barred by Puerto Rico's one year statute of limitations for tort actions. The district court held that it was barred and dismissed the action. On appeal, this court found that the issue turned on whether Section 3 of Article 40 of the Puerto Rico Code of Civil Procedure, 32 L.P.R.A. 254, was implicitly repealed when Article 20 of the Penal Code of 1937 was repealed in 1974. If Article 40(3) was implicitly repealed, then plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations and was properly dismissed. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court stated in its opinion that Article 40(3) was implicitly repealed, ___ responding in the negative to our question whether, in essence, Article 40(3) excluded from the applicable limitations period the time during which plaintiff was imprisoned. In light of the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, we hold that the district court's -2- dismissal of appellant's complaint as time barred is affirmed. So ordered. __________ -3- |