Torres-Gonzalez v. United States ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 98-2208
    RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Boudin, Circuit Judge,
    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
    and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
    Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Fernandez,
    Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose Javier Santos Mimoso,
    Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    June 28, 1999
    Per Curiam.  The district court, adopting the
    recommendation of the magistrate-judge, dismissed this Bivens
    action on the ground that it was barred by the applicable
    statute of limitations.  On appeal, plaintiff attempts to
    revise his equitable-tolling argument--contending that he did
    not learn of the alleged improprieties surrounding his removal
    from Venezuela until February 1998 (rather than August 1996, as
    he alleged below).  This argument, having been advanced for the
    first time on appeal, has been waived.  See, e.g., Malave v.
    Carney Hosp., 
    170 F.3d 217
    , 222 (1st Cir. 1999).  It would fail
    in any event, particularly given that plaintiff voiced similar
    factual allegations as far back as November 1995 in connection
    with his request for habeas relief.  For these reasons, as well
    as those enumerated below, the judgment is summarily affirmed.
    Defendants, noting that service of process was never
    effected below, suggest that this court's jurisdiction is
    therefore lacking.  This argument overlooks the fact that the
    complaint here was screened, and the sua sponte dismissal
    entered, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1915A.  This provision "does
    not require that process be served."  Carr v. Dvorin, 
    171 F.3d 115
    , 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam).  Appellate jurisdiction
    is thus unaffected by the lack of service.
    The motions to strike are denied, the motion to
    clarify is allowed, and the judgment is summarily affirmed.
    See Loc. R. 27.1.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-2208

Filed Date: 6/30/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021