-
USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-2370
LUIS CARRERAS-ROSA AND FRANCISCO SOLER-ROSA,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
MELVIN ALVES-CRUZ, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Antonio Bauza-Torres on brief for appellants. ____________________
Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor General, Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy ________________ ____________________
Solicitor General, and Edgardo Rodriguez-Quilichini, Assistant _____________________________
Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee Melvin
Alves-Cruz.
____________________
October 9, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. This appeal concerns the judgment __________
dismissing a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint as untimely under the
applicable Puerto Rico statute of limitations. We write to
clarify that, applying Puerto Rico law, the day plaintiffs'
action accrued should not be counted as the first day of the
limitations period and that the limitations period begins to
run on the following day. The prior decisions of this court
and the district court for Puerto Rico may have been somewhat
inconsistent on that point. Therefore we take this
opportunity to resolve any uncertainty.
I. Background I. Background
Plaintiffs' brother was shot and killed by the
defendants, policemen in Puerto Rico on May 19, 1994.
Plaintiffs learned of the death on May 20, 1994. They filed
their 1983 complaint on May 22, 1995.
Defendants moved to dismiss based on the applicable one-
year statute of limitations, Article 1868(2) of the Civil
Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, 5298(2). Plaintiffs
responded that they did not know of their cause of action
until they received an autopsy report in early May 1995. The
district court rejected plaintiffs' analysis and determined
that the action accrued on May 20, 1994. The district court
further concluded that the complaint filed on May 22, 1995,
was two days too late and so entered judgment dismissing the
complaint.
-2-
Plaintiffs moved to vacate the judgment of dismissal,
arguing that the day of accrual, May 20, 1994, should not be
counted, so that the 365-day limitations period ran from May
21, 1994, until Saturday, May 20, 1995. They further argued
that their complaint was timely filed on Monday, May 22,
1995, the next court day. The district court summarily
denied that motion.
This appeal followed. The parties' briefs did not
adequately address the question whether the day of accrual
should be counted as the first day of the limitations period,
and so supplemental briefs were ordered. Now that the issue
has been fully briefed, and as the facts are fully laid out
upon the record, we are prepared to decide the appeal without
further argument. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 34.1(a)(2)(iii). ___
II. Discussion II. Discussion
The limitation period for filing this 1983 claim is
governed by the applicable state statute of limitations for
personal injury actions. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, ___ ______ ______
278-80 (1985). In Puerto Rico the applicable limitation
period for tort actions is one year. Article 1868(2) of the
Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, 5298(2); Torres v. ______
Superintendent of Police, 893 F.2d 404, 406 (1st Cir. 1990). ________________________
One year means 365 days, or 366 days in leap year. Olivo _____
Ayala v. Lopez Feliciano, 729 F. Supp. 9, 10 (D.P.R. 1990); _____ ________________
-3-
Yeinsip v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 725 F. Supp. 113, 115 _______ __________________________
(D.P.R. 1989).
Although the limitations period is determined by state
law, the date of accrual is a federal law question. The
accrual period for a 1983 action "ordinarily starts when
the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury on
which the action is based." Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto- _______________ _______
Alicea, 959 F.2d 349, 353 (1st Cir. 1992). In this ______
particular case, it is clear that the date of accrual is May
20, 1994, the date on which plaintiffs learned of their
brother's death.
The question that concerns us here is whether the
limitations period begins on the date of accrual or the
following day. In this 1983 case brought in Puerto Rico,
Puerto Rico law governs the limitations period, including the
"closely related questions of . . . application." See ___
Wilson, 471 U.S. at 269. Thus, when the federal court ______
borrows the state statute of limitations, so too the date on
which the limitations period starts to run should be
determined by the state law defining the "application" of the
limitations period. Accordingly, we determine the question
under Puerto Rico law.1 1
____________________
1To the extent that Puerto Rico law provides that the day 1
that an action accrues is not counted as the first day of the
limitations period, it is consistent with Fed. R. Civ. R.
6(a), which provides:
-4-
The prior opinions of the Puerto Rico district court and
this court may have been somewhat inconsistent in determining
the first day of the limitations period. The inconsistencies
appear to stem from differing applications of two provisions
of Puerto Rico law and a Puerto Rico court rule. Article 388
of the Political Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 1, 72, provides:
The time in which any act provided by law
is to be done is computed by excluding
the first day, and including the last,
unless the last day is a holiday, and
then it is also excluded.
Similarly, as relevant here, Rule 68.1 provides:
In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by these rules, by
order of the court, or by any applicable
statute, the day of the act, event or
default from which the designated period
of time begins to run shall not be
included. . . .
In contrast, Article 1869 of the Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann.
tit. 31, 5299, provides:
The time for the prescription of all
kinds of actions, when there is no
special provision to the contrary, shall
be counted from the day on which they
could have been instituted.
____________________
In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by . . . any
applicable statute, the day of the act,
event or default from which the
designated period of time begins to run
shall not be included.
Therefore, the result here would be the same whether federal
law or Puerto Rico law were applied.
-5-
In some federal cases, with which we now disagree,
Article 1869 was thought to prevail, so that the limitations
period was held to include the first day that the action
could have been instituted. See Ramirez Morales v. Rosa ___ ________________ ____
Viera, 632 F. Supp. 491, 492 (D.P.R. 1986), aff'd, 815 F.2d 2, _____ _____
4-5 (1st Cir. 1987); Olivo Ayala, 729 F. Supp. at 10; Dennis ___________ ______
v. Figueroa, 642 F. Supp. 959, 961 (D.P.R. 1986); de la Cruz ________ __________
LaChapel v. Chevere Ortiz, 637 F. Supp. 43, 44 (D.P.R. 1986); ________ _____________
see also Altair Corp. v. Pesquera de Busquets, 769 F.2d 30, ________ _____________ ____________________
33 (1st Cir. 1985). And in dicta this court has equated the
date of accrual with the first day of the limitations period:
"[The] date of accrual, i.e., the day on which the ____
limitations clock begins to tick, is determined by reference
to federal law." Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz, 23 F.3d 607, 610 _____________ ____
(1st Cir. 1994) (precise dates were not dispositive in that
case).
However, in other cases, with which we now agree,
Article 388 prevailed, so that the limitations period began
on the day following the date of accrual. See Salamanca v. ___ _________
American Airlines, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 24, 26 (D.P.R. 1996); ________________________
Conde v. Beltran Pena, 793 F. Supp. 33, 35-36 (D.P.R. 1992); _____ ____________
Yeinsip, 725 F. Supp. at 115; see also Silva-Wiscovich v. _______ _________ _______________
Weber Dental Manufacturing Co., 835 F.2d 409, 409 (1st Cir. _______________________________
1987).
-6-
We now conclude that the method of computing the
limitations period followed in Salamanca, Conde, and Yeinsip _________ _____ _______
applies in this 1983 action filed in the district court for
Puerto Rico:
the day in which a tort cause of action
arises counts in the sense that it
provides the starting point for the
computation of the prescriptive term; it
is not, however, counted within that
term.
Salamanca, 920 F. Supp. at 26. _________
We reach this conclusion because, as the district court
in Salamanca noted, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has held _________
that Article 388 (not counting the first day) applies to the
statute of limitations for tort actions, which statute also
prescribes this 1983 action. E.g., Comunidad Agricola ____ ___________________
Bianchi v. Superior Court, 99 P.R.Dec. 366, 368 (1970); Ortiz _______ ______________ _____
v. American Railroad Co., 62 P.R.Dec. 171, 176-77 (1943); ______________________
Cintron v. Insular Industrial & Agricultural Exposition _______ ________________________________________________
Ass'n, 58 P.R.Dec. 821, 828 (1941); see also Escalera v. _____ _________ ________
Andino, 76 P.R.Dec. 251, 254 (1954). As the district court ______
in Yeinsip explained, Article 1869 "is a suppletory _______
[provision], to be applied only if no special law over the
matter has been adopted," and Article 388 "is a specific
statute which regulates the computation of legal periods of
time," so that Article 388 controls. 725 F. Supp. at 115.
Here, applying the correct rule to compute the
prescriptive period, plaintiffs' action accrued on May 20,
-7-
1994, but the statute of limitations did not begin to run
until the next day, May 21, 1994. The applicable 365-day
period would have expired on Saturday, May 20, 1995, but,
excluding the weekend days, the limitations period extended
to the following Monday. It follows that plaintiffs'
complaint was timely filed on Monday, May 22, 1995.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district ______
court dismissing the complaint and remand for further ______
proceedings.
-8-
Document Info
Docket Number： 96-2370
Filed Date： 10/10/1997
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 3/3/2016