Filed: Jun. 15, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: MANUEL MARTINEZ, ET AL.Defendants, Appellees.Carlos V. Garcia Gutierez with whom Guillermo J. Ramos Luina was, on brief for appellant.year statute of limitations for tort actions.court held that it was barred and dismissed the action.Article 20 of the Penal Code of 1937 was repealed in 1974.
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Procedure, 32 L.P.R.A. 254, was implicitly repealed when
Article 20 of the Penal Code of 1937 was repealed in 1974.
If Article 40(3) was implicitly repealed, then plaintiff's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its opinion that Article 40(3) was implicitly repealed,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-
