Cotto v. United States ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                              _________________________


          No. 96-1457


                               EVELYN COTTO, ET AL.,


                               Plaintiffs, Appellees,


                                         v.


                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                Defendant, Appellee,


                              _________________________


                                 Peter John Porrata,


                                     Appellant.

                              _________________________


                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]


                              _________________________


                                       Before


                                Selya, Circuit Judge,


                             Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,


                            and Keeton*, District Judge.


                              _________________________


               Manuel Suarez,  with whom Jose R.  Franco was on brief,  for

          appellant.

               Miguel A. Fernandez, Assistant United States Attorney,  with

          whom
Guillerm
o Gil, United States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano

          Del Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for the

          United States.


                              _________________________

                                    June 10, 1997

                              _________________________

          _________________

          *Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.






                    Per Curiam.  Because the putative appellant, Peter John


          Porrata, is not   and has never been   a  party to the underlying


          civil action,  he does not have  standing to appeal the  district


          court's denial of the plaintiffs' second Rule 60(b) motion.   See


          Karcher v. May, 484 U.S.  72, 77 (1987); Diamond v. Charles,  476


          U.S. 54, 63-64 (1986); United States v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d  108,


          113-14 (1st Cir. 1992); Dopp v. HTP Corp., 947 F.2d 506, 512 (1st


          Cir. 1991).  The appeal is therefore dismissed.




                    Appeal dismissed.



































                                          2