Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 96-1676
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
Eduardo M. Joglar
__________________
with whom
Esther Crispin
_______________
was on
brief
appellants.
John F. Navares
_______________
____________________
STAHL,
STAHL,
Circuit Judge.
Circuit Judge.
______________
This appeal
concerns the
district
court's
reconsider
dismissal
of
and
plaintiffs-appellants' 42
subsequent refusal
U.S.C.
1983
to
claims
Puerto Rico.
Background
Background
On
Assistant
District
Attorney of
police
officer, filed
Carlos Yamil
criminal
the Commonwealth
of Puerto
charges
against
appellant
of sexual misconduct,
April 29,
of employment,
On
Aybar's place
superiors of
terminated
termination
On July
then
Aybar's
employment.
resulted from
According
and
to Aybar,
Crispin-Reyes' visit
girlfriend
Wometco subsequently
future wife
his
to Wometco.
I. Morales-Laboy, Aybar's
who
also
was a
Wometco
cause
of
her
resignation
harassment
district court
On
Aybar.
-22
from
co-workers
July 1,
1994, the
On July
complaint
in
1, 1994,
federal
district
court
naming
filed a
numerous
subsequent
termination of employment.
Otero-Martinez
Federal Civil
and
Crispin-Reyes
Rights Act, 42
malicious prosecution
not to
be
subject to
with
U.S.C.
of Aybar,
violations
of
the
1983, allegedly
for
violation of
defamation, and
Aybar's right
infringement of
his
right
to
secure
continuous
employment.
tort and,
relationship,
Morales-Laboy
with Aybar,
both stemming
injury to
alleged
their conjugal
violations of
Rico), and
Pedro Toledo
Police) as
defendants both
personal capacities.
in their
On August
Superintendent of
official and in
their
Morales-
On
Pierluisi
dismiss
(in
the
September
13,
his
official
claims
against
1994,
the
Commonwealth
capacity) filed
them
the
based
on
motion
and
to
immunity
afforded by
November 30,
capacity,
1994, Rossello
joined
the
supplemental memorandum
Constitution.
and Pierluisi, in
motion
to
dismiss
in support thereof.
On
his personal
and
filed
On February 7,
-33
1995,
Toledo
also joined
the motion
to dismiss.
Neither
Aybar
On
March
15, 1995,
the
pursuant to
complaint
and
Fed. R. Civ. P.
against
Crispin-Reyes.
appellants'
prosecution
1983 claim
Aybar's
district
including Otero-Martinez
court
determined
that
that although
appellants' actions
Fourth Amendment
statute of
the
found
court for
all defendants,
The
district
rights,
the
may
have violated
applicable one
claim.
With
year
respect to
appellants'
claimed
violation of
Aybar's
right
to secure
private
corporation, did
protected by
not
the Fourteenth
possess a
Amendment.
property
The
interest
district court
that the
Puerto Rico,
court held
1983."
that
appellants' claims
against
suit against
Finally, the
Otero-Martinez
-44
On March
reconsideration
31, 1995,
of
this
appellants filed a
judgment
claiming,
motion for
among
other
based on
the alleged
Although
much of the
fact
time preceding
the filing of
the complaint
(a
limitations),
the
"emancipated" him
tolling.
court
concluded
that
Aybar's
marriage
Undaunted,
the
appellants
then filed
motion,
order.1
date
of
the period
Aybar's arrest)
between March
and April
16,
25, 1993
1994 (the
(the
date of
____________________
1.
Rule 52(b)
states
may amend
accompany
part:
"On
the
judgment accordingly.
a motion for
filed no
a new
"Any motion
later than
10
findings--
The motion
trial under
to alter or
party's
of judgment,
59(e) dictates:
shall be
in pertinent
Rule 59."
amend a
days after
may
Rule
judgment
entry of
the
judgment."
-55
minority status in
until the
denied
Aybar
latter date.
this motion.
actually
preceding the
On
Although
was not
reminding
pursuant
that
the
the
during
the
much of
that Aybar
married during
to Morales-Laboy as his
appellants
of
time
their
duties
to
wife
After
the
court
appellants
"erroneously
followed.2
injury to
recognized that
complaint, he found
and claiming
district court
Judge Fuste
married
filing of the
of limitations
assessed
had
failed
their
to
demonstrate
averments."
This
that
it
appeal
Standard of Review
Standard of Review
Our standard
of review of a
well-pleaded
facts
as
true
established.
and
we
Found.
______
dismissal pursuant to
draw
all
earliest
basis for
reasonable
Cir. 1993).
We accept all
stages
of litigation
decision, we
without a
must carefully
developed factual
balance the
rule of
____________________
2.
Aybar
court's
and
Morales-Laboy
dismissal as
do
to either
not
the
the Commonwealth
-6-
appeal
district
of Puerto
simplified
civil pleadings
against our
conclusory
allegations."
Id.
___
As
need for
we
more than
previously
have
summary
judgment has
substantial
discretion
proceedings
in
been granted,
order to
in
the district
deciding whether
allow
the
to
court has
reopen the
unsuccessful party
to
or argue
City of Boston,
________________
F.2d
969
a new theory."
1273,
1279
(1st
Mackin
______
Cir.
v.
1992).
of discretion."
Id.;
___
36 (1st
Cir. 1994)
court's
motion to
abuse of
us that the
(explaining
alter or
that "[w]e
amend a
discretion"); Fragoso v.
_______
F.3d 27,
review a
trial
judgment for
manifest
878, 886
will
be overturned only
if the appellant
convinces us that
Discussion
Discussion
To
determine the
Reyes
argue that
order of
motion.
May 7,
If
issue.
Aybar appealed
this appeal,
only the
district court's
second reconsideration
-77
we first
true, then
resolution entails
scope of
issue for
our
its discretion in
claim
due to
was barred
limitations.
pertained
the expiration
of the
Amendment
statute of
not only
to the May
7th order,
but also
to the
"Under Fed.
Rules .
original
52(b)
judgment, and
R. App.
and 59
P. 4(a) timely
suspend
the time
motions under
the finality
of
the
both that
judgment and denial of the motions runs from the entry of the
order
denying
the motions."
Fiore
_____
v. Washington County
__________________
1992);
appellants
timely
reconsideration
1995
960 F.2d
order
of
filed
their
the district
dismissing their
229, 234
& (C).
(1st Cir.
In this case,
first
motion
court's initial
claims.3
for
March 15,
Subsequent to
the
a renewed motion
for reconsideration
____________________
3.
Although
motion
for
appellants
did not
reconsideration,
label
this
"regardless
a Rule
of
how
59(e)
it
is
of judgment
that questions
the correctness
of a
Civ. P. 59(e)."
883 (10th Cir.
Hernandez, 22 F.3d
Skagerberg
__________
v. State
_____
Cir. 1994).
__________
_________
or amend
that "[a]
be served
judgment."
not
See also
___ ____
-88
on
1996
denial
appellants
of
the
appealed
latter
to this
motion
court on
for
May
reconsideration,
16, 1996.
The
appellants
thus
followed
the
of the
procedural
guidelines
See
___
to
Mariani________
underlying
judgment.
Fed.
R. App. P
with
the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the date
of entry of
initial motion
litigant must
ten days of
file a notice of
While an
which a
Civ. P.
951 F.2d
16,
18
(1st
Cir.
reconsideration served
1991),
subsequent
motion
for
the initial motion for reconsideration but more than ten days
toll "the
Hernandez,
_________
Maytag Corp., 90
_____________
F.3d
72,
74
(2d Cir.
see Glinka v.
__________
1996)
("Allowing
notice
of
appeal
would
encourage
frivolous
motions
and
-99
the finality of
Inc.,
____
891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th Cir. 1990) ("Both the language
and purpose of Rule 4(a)(4) indicate that the time for appeal
is
postponed
only
specified.
I.e.,
____
of
motion
such a
appeal.") (quoting
by
an
original
________
motion
a motion to reconsider
will not
further
of
the
type
an order disposing
postpone the
time
to
204.12[1]);
870 (5th
motion
for
reconsideration,
authority in this
the
condemned by
a successive
well-established
[T]he filing of
In
this
case,
the
filed their
1996,
district
court
dismissed
Appellants
on March 31,
period.
The
for
second motion
filed their
of Rule 4
notice of
court's
March
15,
1995
appeal.
appellants
We thus
lack
dismissal
-1010
the thirty
of
the
appellants'
complaint.
390; Wright,
______
22 F.3d at
71.4
Rule 59(e)
____________________
4.
an
The
initial
motion
reconsideration motions
for
as follows:
and
successive
"[W]here an
appellant
running of the
884 F.2d
721 (5th
instant
case,
appellants'
second
390.
motion
In
for
the first
the
statute of
Rico.
no
limitations for
the running of
1983 action
in Puerto
tolling
where
an
order
'den[ies] timely
________
postjudgment
unchanged.'"
first motion
123,
128
district court's
denial of
of their
conclusion.
(quoting Brown v.
_____
case, the
dismissal
Id.
___
complaint
See Harrell
___ _______
n.4
(5th
summary judgment
United Ins.
___________
curiam)).
the appellants'
because it
reached the
Cir. 1983)
(indicating
was unchanged by
In
that
amended judgment
same
718 F.2d
original
because
(indicating
that
in
order
for
second
"must result[] in a
altered").
"The interest of
rule 59(e)
apple for
bringing an appeal."
5.
tolling the
time for
purpose of
claims.
See
___
in designating a
judgment in the
that a
notice of appeal
long
-1111
discretion in
second]
to
motion
Acevedo-Ruiz,
____________
vacate
945 F.2d
at 3.
denying .
the
In
judgment
. .
of
their second
[appellants'
dismissal."
motion for
reconsideration,
appellants argued
that the
district court
improperly ruled
barred on the grounds that one year had elapsed from the time
one
year statute
plaintiff
of limitations
until
the
Appellants supplied
the district
court
arrest on March
____________________
tolled for
twenty-first
Fourth
minor's
to be
a minor
birthday.6
with evidence
that
25, 1993.
Appellants
as
the
intent to
appeal from
specific judgment
can be
misled
by the mistake'"
(quoting Kelly v.
_____
94,
Cir. 1990))).
93 n.3 (1st
assertion,
lack
however, in
We
light of
appellate jurisdiction
to
need not
evaluate this
our determination
consider an
F.2d
that we
appeal of
any
6.
is one
year.
(1st Cir.
See
___
1994).
Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz,
_____________
____
This one year
plaintiff's twenty-first
plaintiff is
a minor at the
P.R. Laws
Ann. tit.
plaintiff
marries
limitations
32,
while
in
the
254(1) (1991).
still
tit. 32,
minor,
of the date
932, 933
event
If,
the
that
the
filed.
See
___
however, a
statute
of
of the marriage.
(1991); Martinez v.
________
-1212
607, 610
tolled until
ceases to toll as
23 F.3d
period is
birthday
1983 case
unemancipated
statute of
minor
during this
limitations
was tolled
filed
time
and,
until
his
therefore, the
twenty-first
after Aybar turned twenty-one and thus more than seven months
before
the one
year
limitations period
would expire,
and
The
district court
concluded that
the appellants
made representations
that led it
to believe that
they were
Specifically,
partnership. . . . Morales
alleged
according
malicious prosecution
to
the
to their conjugal
of her
district court,
husband."
appellants
Moreover,
had
several
when
they amended
their complaint
or when
they
failed to
to direct the
district
court's
discovered
attention
material
evidence
to
newly
or
to correct its
avoid
unnecessary
appellate
procedures.
vehicle
for
party
to undo
its
own
-1313
procedural
failures,
and
it
certainly
party to introduce
new
should
have been
that could
presented
to the
Moro v.
____
(citations omitted);
91 F.3d
872, 876
(7th Cir.
1996)
at 36-37; Hayes
_____
F.D.I.C.
________
v.
1992);
National
Metal
Finishing
Co.,
Inc.
______________________________________________
BarclaysAmerican/Commercial,
___________________________
1990).
In
directed
their
this case,
899
we do
F.2d
F.2d
10, 16
119, 123
not question
(1st Cir.
(1st
v.
Cir.
that appellants
second
reconsideration
motion:
Contrary
to
the
married
however, does
not necessitate
court's decision.
newly discovered
to
the
illuminated an error of
that we reverse
"Except for
motions to
fact,
the district
amend based
on
is only required
record.
interest in
To do
otherwise
the finality of
would defeat
litigation."
the compelling
Fontenot
________
v. Mesa
____
Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986); see Lyons
_____________
___ _____
1992), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 994 F.2d 716 (10th Cir.
_____________________________
-1414
1993).
In the instant
case, as in Fontenot
________
district court
drew
an
from
the
relied
findings
eminently reasonable
evidence
on that
in
the
inference in
of fact.
That
inference
record
and
making its
other evidence
inference is beside
the point.
hindsight, [appellants]
realize that .
. .
may
now
[they]
might have,
but .
. .
with
responsibility
for
that
("Unlike the
burns.
potentially
Emperor Nero,
party
who
plaintiff's motion
Univ.,
in silence[]
relevant information
information presented
unavailable
sits
at 36-37
does
withholds
at
his
the
so
district court in
support of
nor was it
when the
978 F.2d at 16
[to the
[and]
as Rome
summary
judgment
was filed");
World
_____
was no reason
_____
why appellant could not have asserted its argument before the
discovered evidence).7
____________________
7.
We
comes to us
as having been
their claims.
latitude to
the district
us that
in this case
-1515
court
World Univ.,
____________
support
the
evidence
the argument
their second
unavailable at
on March 15,
Pierluisi, and
that
appellants
submitted
to
for the
first time
in
they advanced
1995.
In their motion
Toledo argued
to dismiss,
that the
Rossello,
of
expired.
motion,
The
and
appellants chose
thus
did
not
not to defend
reveal the
fact
against this
that
Aybar's
and
Morales-Laboy
were
not
married
until
April
1994.8
F.3d
at 391
____________________
abused
its
discretion.
(upholding
district
See
___
court's
Hernandez,
_________
denial of
22
second
Rule
59(e)
court's dismissal
1178,
1180
(7th
Cir
1992)
(ruling,
in context
of
not
previously
[subsequent]
decision
no competent evidence
available,
denying
the
district
Figgie's
motion
that
court's
under
the
8.
dismiss
Rossello,
and explained
Pierluisi,
and
that
appellants
Toledo's
did not
motion
because
appellants
petitioned
the
oppose
they
It is
district
court
to
reconsider
Martinez
not
and
only
its sua
___
Crispin-Reyes,
sponte
______
but
also
its
as
to Otero-
ruling
as
to
before the
ruling
dismissing
Aybar's marital
status in
-1616
Appellants
their
did not
first motion
even mention
for reconsideration,
in which
they did
assert that
Aybar's minority
statute of limitations.9
second
Rule
59(e)
status functioned to
motion
that
appellants
toll the
filed their
informed
the
____________________
9.
and "wife" in
Morales-Laboy
"suffered not
loss of husband's
_________
suffering
of her
own humiliation
as a
income, as well as
husband's
_________
that
own
humiliation, physical
and
-1717
district
question.10
In light
district
court
did
of these circumstances, we
not
clearly abuse
its
discretion
for reconsideration.
in
See
___
F.3d at 91 n.3;
World University,
________________
1180
affirm
the district
court's
decision to
1220.
deny
We thus
appellants'
____________________
10.
evidence
of
their
court's denial
had
no
determine
status prior
to
the
district
reason to
that
question.
marital
believe
they
were
that
married
Appellants assert
the district
that
during
court
the
period
their pleadings
would
in
merely
filed the
common law
goods at this
husband and
time.
See
___
wife and
shared a
community of
tit. 31,
3622,
supports
husband
the
conclusion that
and wife
legitimately
during
could
partnership.
the period
claim
We believe
they
constituted
in question,
injury
to
their
conjugal
and thus
married at the
common law
time of Aybar's
arrest.
We
to
failure
court of
an
in
this case.
the district
-1818
Costs to appellees.
Costs to appellees
-1919