Gonzalez-Bernal v. U.S., GONZALEZ-BERNAL

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore BREYER, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and CYR; TORRUELLA
Citation907 F.2d 246
PartiesCarmen Delia, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Appellees. . Heard
Docket NumberGONZALEZ-BERNAL,No. 89-1894
Decision Date06 April 1990

Page 246

907 F.2d 246
Carmen Delia GONZALEZ-BERNAL, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 89-1894.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
Heard April 6, 1990.
Decided July 3, 1990.

Page 247

Gabriel Penagaricano, with whom Juan T. Penagaricano, Jr., Luis A. Gonzalez and Santiago Gutierrez Armstrong, were on brief for plaintiffs, appellants.

Osvaldo Carlo-Linares, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, U.S. Atty., was on brief, for defendants, appellees.

Before BREYER, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and CYR, Circuit Judges.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico's dismissal of an amended complaint against the United States and the United States Customs Service which appellants based on the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq. The ground for dismissal was that appellants' action is time barred. We agree with the district court and thus, affirm.

I. FACTS

On September 10, 1982, Yamil Mitri-Lajam was last seen alive while being escorted by Jesus Rafael Dominguez, a Special Agent of the United States Customs Service, at Luis Munoz Marin International Airport. Dominguez and another Special Agent, Daniel Joseph Maravilla, disappeared for several hours following Lajam's arrival. Lajam was carrying almost seven hundred thousand dollars in cash and checks. Ten days later Lajam's decomposed body was found at the bottom of a

Page 248

gully near El Yunque rain forest. He had been shot in the back of the neck. The money was never found.

Appellants, Carmen Delia Gonzalez-Bernal and her three minor children, filed a Standard Form 95 claim dated September 7, 1984, based on the allegedly wrongful death of her husband and their father, respectively. On October 17, 1984, the Customs Service denied the claim on the ground that it was time barred based on the two-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b). This denial was sent by certified mail as required by the statute. The claim was received September 11, 1984.

On May 13, 1987, a federal grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against former Special Agents Dominguez and Maravilla. The indictment was the conclusion of a federal investigation into the death of Lajam.

Appellants, who had not pursued further action after the denial of their administrative claim, filed a second Standard Form 95 claim on June 8, 1987. The second claim was denied by the Customs Service on August 19, 1987, for the same reasons as before. This second form identified the tortfeasors as two agents of the United States Customs Service.

After a jury trial, Maravilla and Dominguez were convicted of murdering Lajam, along with other crimes. Appellants filed the instant action against the United States and the United States Customs Service on May 24, 1988, and amended their pleadings on September 9, 1988.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards of Review

Upon considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the district court should not grant the motion unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be unable to recover under any set of facts. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1357 at 593 (1969). We review under the same standard, Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 66, 99 S.Ct. 383, 387, 58 L.Ed.2d 292 (1978), and thus our review is plenary.

It is well settled law, that an action brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., ("the Act") must be dismissed if a plaintiff has failed to file a timely administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 113, 100 S.Ct. 352, 355, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). See Vega-Velez v. United States, 800 F.2d 288 (1st Cir.1986); Richman v. United States, 709 F.2d 122 (1st Cir.1983). The Act affords a plaintiff two years from the date a claim against the United States accrues, to file a written claim with the agency thereby preserving the right to file a tort suit against the United States. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b). 1 In the event this claim is denied, a suit must be filed in federal court within six months following the denial. The filing of a timely administrative claim is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived. Richman, 709 F.2d at 124. If the claimant fails to comply with this requirement, his claim is "forever barred." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b).

B. Analysis

Appellants alleged that appellees deliberately concealed material facts related to Lajam's death, and thus that the statute of limitations should not begin to run until they discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the basis of the lawsuit. They argue that even in the exercise of due diligence they could not have discovered that Customs agents were the responsible parties within two years of Lajam's death, and that the statute should begin during the year of the indictment.

Page 249

Furthermore, they contend that it is beyond human comprehension to argue that they had reason to even remotely suspect, or with due diligence could have discovered, that Government agents had caused Lajam's death. Appellants argue that it is ludicrous for them to have been expected to prosecute their claims two and a half years before the indictments were...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • Roma Const. Co. v. aRusso, No. 95-2107
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 8, 1996
    ...Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1853, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976); Gonzalez-Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir.1990). We review under the same standard, Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 66, 99 S.Ct. 383, 387-88, 58 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Gonzalez v. United States, Civil Nos. 09–2200 (DRD), 12–1201
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
    • September 30, 2012
    ...is both mandatory and jurisdictional. González v. United States, 284 F.3d 281, 288 (1st Cir.2002); González–Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir.1990). It is a familiar rule that challenges to a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the lit......
  • Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc, No. 91-1221
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 10, 1992
    ...Town of Smithfield, 907 F.2d 239, 244 (1st Cir.1990) (extensive discussion citing many authorities). 26 Smithfield Concerned Citizens, 907 F.2d at 246 (alleged improper motives were of an economic nature 27 Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205, 207 (2d Cir.1988). 28 Sullivan v. Town of......
  • Skwira v. U.S., No. 02-1988.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 15, 2003
    ...States, 284 F.3d 281, 287 (1st Cir.2002); Attallah v. United States, 955 F.2d 776, 779 (1st Cir.1991); Gonzalez-Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir.1990). Thus, failure to comply with the FTCA's statute of limitations means that the district court lacks subject matter jurisd......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • Roma Const. Co. v. aRusso, No. 95-2107
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • February 8, 1996
    ...Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1853, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976); Gonzalez-Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir.1990). We review under the same standard, Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 66, 99 S.Ct. 383, 387-88, 58 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Gonzalez v. United States, Civil Nos. 09–2200 (DRD), 12–1201
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
    • September 30, 2012
    ...is both mandatory and jurisdictional. González v. United States, 284 F.3d 281, 288 (1st Cir.2002); González–Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir.1990). It is a familiar rule that challenges to a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the lit......
  • Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc, No. 91-1221
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 10, 1992
    ...Town of Smithfield, 907 F.2d 239, 244 (1st Cir.1990) (extensive discussion citing many authorities). 26 Smithfield Concerned Citizens, 907 F.2d at 246 (alleged improper motives were of an economic nature 27 Brady v. Town of Colchester, 863 F.2d 205, 207 (2d Cir.1988). 28 Sullivan v. Town of......
  • Skwira v. U.S., No. 02-1988.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 15, 2003
    ...States, 284 F.3d 281, 287 (1st Cir.2002); Attallah v. United States, 955 F.2d 776, 779 (1st Cir.1991); Gonzalez-Bernal v. United States, 907 F.2d 246, 248 (1st Cir.1990). Thus, failure to comply with the FTCA's statute of limitations means that the district court lacks subject matter jurisd......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT