Ramirez Morales v. Rosa Viera

Decision Date02 April 1986
Docket NumberCiv. No. 85-1420 (JAF).
Citation632 F. Supp. 491
PartiesJaime RAMIREZ MORALES, father of José Luis Ramirez Vázquez, deceased, as successor of his cause of action and in his own behalf; Jose Antonio, Rene, and Cruz Maria Ramirez Vazquez, and Jose Jaime Ramirez Morales, in their own behalf, Plaintiffs, v. Isidoro ROSA VIERA, Badge No. P10275, individually and as a Police Officer of the Police of Puerto Rico; Desiderio Cartagena Ortiz and Jorge Luis Collazo, individually and as former Chiefs of the Police of Puerto Rico; Andres Garcia Arache, individually and as Chief of the Police of Puerto Rico, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Francisco M. Dolz, Old San Juan, P.R., for plaintiffs.

Magali Arrivi Cros, Federal Litigation Div., Dept. of Justice, San Juan, P.R., for defendants.

ORDER

FUSTE, District Judge.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the present suit is time barred by the one year Puerto Rico statute of limitations applicable to tort actions, 31 L.P.R.A. Secs. 5141, 5298. Plaintiffs have opposed. We treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 56.

The record, seen in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, shows that on Sunday, March 25, 1984, at about 12:58 A.M., José Luis Ramírez-Vázquez died of gunshot wounds fired by a Puerto Rico police officer. Plaintiffs concede that it was not until Monday, March 26, 1984, that they learned of the death of Ramírez-Vázquez. Pursuant to Wilson v. Garcia, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985), the present 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 cause of action is governed as to the time-for-suit provision by local statute.

Tort actions in Puerto Rico prescribe or become time barred after one year. Section 1802 of the Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. Sec. 5141. The year commences to run and shall be counted from the day on which the particular cause of action could have been instituted. Sections 1868 and 1869 of the Code, 31 L.P.R.A. Secs. 5298, 5299. The Spanish text of section 1869, 31 L.P.R.A. Sec. 5299, is quite clear and emphatic. Referring to the time for the commencement of the action, the Code states: "(s)e contará desde el día en que pudieran ejercitarse."

The commentators to the Spanish Commerce Code, in their review of the Spanish equivalent section 1969, are clear as to the fact that the first day of the one-year period is to be counted, inasmuch as the civil law theory is to the effect that once the cause of action ensues, those with a right to seek redress are in a position to proceed with their claim. The Roman Law doctrine of actio nata is of application, the maxim being, actio nodum nata non praescribitur. If the injury has occurred, the time-for-suit provision runs its course. Diez Picazo, "La Prescripción en el Código Civil", pp. 81-88 (Editorial Bosch, Barcelona, 1964). Of course, the filing of the complaint tolls the statute. In this case, the complaint was filed July 8, 1985. Since more than one year elapsed from March 26, 1984 to July 8, 1985, plaintiffs need to prove that the statute of limitations was tolled.

Plaintiffs, faced with a prima facie case of prescription, allege that they tolled the statute of limitations by interrupting its course by extrajudicial claims. Section 1873 of the Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. Sec. 5303. The acts of interruption are extra-judicial claim letters sent to defendants requesting damages. The letters, although dated March 25, 1985, were postmarked March 27, 1985. Such letters were postmarked after the action was time barred. They do not have any tolling effect.

Plaintiffs must realize that in civil...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Dennis v. Figueroa, Civ. No. 85-2270 (JAF).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • August 27, 1986
    ...under the one-year Puerto Rico statute of limitations. See LaChapel v. Ortiz, 637 F.Supp. 43, 44-45 (D.P.R.1986); Morales v. Viera, 632 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.P.R.1986); Batista Malavé v. Com. of Puerto Rico, 631 F.Supp. 936, 938 (D.P.R.1986). The proposition that a continuing violation would ......
  • Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, RIVERA-GOMEZ
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 1, 1988
    ...L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (state statute of limitations for personal injuries ordinarily governs section 1983 action); Ramirez Morales v. Rosa Viera, 632 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.P.R. 1986) (applying section 5298(2) to civil rights action), aff'd, 815 F.2d 2 (1st Cir.1987), and that the plaintiffs' cau......
  • Olivo Ayala v. Lopez Feliciano, Civ. No. 88-2076(PG).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • January 2, 1990
    ...la Cruz LaChapel v. Chévere Ortiz, 637 F.Supp. 43 (D.P.R.1986), Dennis v. Figueroa, 642 F.Supp. 959 (D.P.R.1986), Ramirez Morales v. Rosa Viera, 632 F.Supp. 491 (D.P.R.1986), affmd. 815 F.2d 2 (1st Cir. Finally, we note that the determination of the "day on which the action could have been ......
  • Carreras-Rosa v. Alves-Cruz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 9, 1997
    ...so that the limitations period was held to include the first day that the action could have been instituted. See Ramirez Morales v. Rosa Viera, 632 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.P.R.1986), aff'd, 815 F.2d 2, 4-5 (1st Cir.1987); Olivo Ayala, 729 F.Supp. at 10; Dennis v. Figueroa, 642 F.Supp. 959, 961 ......
  • 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