Angel Luis Burgos-Hernandez v. Zoe Laboy

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-2054
ANGEL LUIS BURGOS-HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ZOE LABOY; JORGE COLLAZO-TORRES; JAIME RIVERA;
PEDRO J. RODRIGUEZ-FORTIER; CARMEN L. CORREA-GOMEZ,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Angel Luis Burgos-Hernandez on brief pro se.
Gustavo A. Gelpi, Solicitor General, Rosa N. Russe Garcia,
Deputy Solicitor General, and Sigfredo Rodriguez-Isaac,
Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for appellees.
December 4, 2000

-- 1 of 3 --

1The alleged continuing adverse effects of the transfer
include lack of access to Puerto Rico legal materials and denial
Per Curiam. Angel Luis Burgos-Hernandez, a
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico prisoner, appeals pro se from
the dismissal of his lawsuit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The district court interpreted the complaint to be
limited to a challenge to Burgos-Hernandez's transfer in
1981 from a prison in Puerto Rico to a federal facility in
Pennsylvania. Burgos-Hernandez makes no argument that this
interpretation was too narrow. The court concluded that the
transfer claim is barred by the one-year statute of
limitations applicable to § 1983 actions in Puerto Rico. We
agree.
Burgos-Hernandez's suggestion that his transfer
claim survives on a continuing violation theory is
meritless. The argument overlooks what "we have termed the
'critical distinction' between a continuing act and a
singular act that brings continuing consequences in its
roiled wake." Gilbert v. City of Cambridge, 932 F.2d 51,
58-59 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Altair Corp. v. Pesquera de
Busquets, 769 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1985)). The transfer was
a discrete event that occurred in 1981. Burgos-Hernandez
cannot avoid the limitations period by claiming continuing
adverse effects from the transfer.1

-- 2 of 3 --

of good-time credits. Our disposition is without prejudice to
Burgos-Hernandez pursuing these matters as separate issues
(i.e., apart from the transfer decision) in a new action(s). We
express no opinion as to whether Burgos-Hernandez has viable,
separate claims or whether the denial of good-time credits can
be pursued in a § 1983 action (as opposed to habeas proceeding).
-3-
Affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --