Torres-Gonzalez v. Miranda-Marchand ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-1573





                                RAMON TORRES-GONZALEZ,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                              GRACIANY MIRANDA-MARCHAND,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Ramon Torres-Gonzalez on brief pro se.
_____________________

            Graciany Miranda-Marchand on brief pro se.
_________________________





                                 ____________________



                                   November 19, 1997

                                 ____________________





































                      Per Curiam.  The district court properly  dismissed
__________



            plaintiff's action on res judicata grounds.  That plaintiff's



            1992 action  was  dismissed before  trial  because  plaintiff



            filed the  action after  the statute  of limitations  had run



            does not make  preclusion principles inapplicable.   One year



            statutes  of limitations  are treated  as  "substantive," not



            procedural, under Puerto Rico law.   Febo Ortego v.  Superior
___________     ________



            Court,  102  P.R.R.  506,  509  (1974).    Consequently,  the
_____



            dismissal  of  plaintiff's  1992  action barred  his  present



            action.  See, e.g., Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 80-
___  ____  ____    _______________



            81  (1st  Cir.  1985)  (explaining that  when  a  statute  of



            limitations  is  a substantive  limitation  extinguishing the



            right  of action,  a  dismissal  on  statute  of  limitations



            grounds  constitutes a  dismissal  on  the  merits  with  res



            judicata effect).



                      Affirmed.
________











































                                         -2-