USCA1 Opinion
June 24, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2230
SIGFRIDO TORRES LAZARINI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Rafael A. Oliveras Lopez De Victoria on brief for appellant. ____________________________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del _____________ ______________________
Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. ___
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. After careful review of the briefs and __________
the record, we conclude that there is no substantial question
presented in this appeal and that summary disposition is
appropriate. The district court correctly determined that
plaintiff's claim was time-barred, and we add only the
following comments.
Although plaintiff's 1990 claim may have been timely as
to those few incidents occurring in 1989 and 1990, plaintiff
did not identify any of those more recent incidents as the
cause of significant harm. Accordingly, in the context of
this appeal, we do not consider them to be individually
actionable torts that should survive the government's motion
to dismiss.
In any case, plaintiff does not appear to state a claim
based on any individual incidents; instead, as we read
plaintiff's complaint and other filings, his underlying claim
is one of institutional discrimination manifesting itself
from time to time since 1953 in various actions by various
Veterans Administration personnel. Such a claim might be
timely under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
2401(b), if the claim alleged a "continuing tort" and at
least one tortious action occurred within the statutory
limitations period. See, e.g., Havens Realty Corp. v. __________ _____________________
Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 380-81 (1982); Johnson v. Rodriguez, _______ _______ _________
943 F.2d 104, 108 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. _____________
-2-
1063 (1992); Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 818-19 ____ _____________
(D.C. Cir. 1984); Gross v. United States, 676 F.2d 295, 299- _____ _____________
300 (8th Cir. 1982).
We agree with the district court that plaintiff's claim
cannot be characterized as a "continuing tort," in that
plaintiff made no cognizable showing of any relation among
the various acts complained of, even assuming that those acts
were tortious. Plaintiff's own unsupported speculation and
improbable inference about the VA's "plan" to deny him
treatment and benefits was not sufficient to withstand the
government's motion for summary judgment. See Mack v. Great ___ ____ _____
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 182-83 (1st Cir. ___________________________
1989) (mere vague references concerning a policy of
discrimination are not sufficient); Medina-Munoz v. R.J. ____________ ____
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990) ______________________
(similar). Therefore, plaintiff's complaint based on all the
events stretching back over more than forty years was not
timely filed, and the district court properly granted summary
judgment for the government.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-3-