
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 97-1370                          MANUEL GONZALEZ-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.                                          _____________________                              _________________________               Jesus  Hernandez Sanchez and  Hernandez Sanchez Law  Firm on               ________________________      ___________________________          brief for appellants.               Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General,  Guillermo Gil,               _______________                               _____________          United  States Attorney, Robert S. Greenspan  and E. Roy Hawkens,                                   ___________________      ______________          Attorneys, Appellate Staff, United States Department of  Justice,          and Jacklyn L. Ringhausen, Associate Field Counsel, United States              _____________________          Department  of  Housing  and  Urban  Development,  on  brief  for          appellee.                              _________________________                                  September 12, 1997                              _________________________                    Per Curiam.  The plaintiffs  in this case, most of whom                    Per Curiam.                    __________          are   former  employees  of   the  Puerto  Rico   Public  Housing          Administration  (PRPHA), have been struggling since 1992 first to          block, and now to secure  money damages for, the privatization of          certain aspects  of the public  housing program in  Puerto Rico.1          Their current initiative  represents an effort to  obtain damages          under the Federal  Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28  U.S.C.    1346(b),          2671-2680 (1994).   When the United States  Department of Housing          and Urban  Development (HUD)  denied their  timely administrative          claim,  28  U.S.C.    2675,  the  plaintiffs  filed suit  in  the          district court and later amended their complaint.  The government          responded  by filing  a motion  for dismissal.   On  February 25,          1997,  the  district  court  dismissed  the  plaintiffs'  amended          complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction.  See Gonzalez-                                                              ___ _________          Figueroa v. United  States, No. 94-2761,  1997 WL 117750  (D.P.R.          ________    ______________          Feb. 25, 1997).  This appeal ensued.                    We have  carefully read the parties'  briefs, evaluated          their legal arguments, and  studied the papers in  the case.   We          conclude, on whole-record review, that this is a suitable case in          which to act upon  our long-held belief that "when  a lower court          produces a  comprehensive, well-reasoned  decision, an  appellate          court should refrain from writing at length to no  other end than          to  hear its  own words  resonate."   Lawton  v. State  Mut. Life                                                ______     ________________          Assur. Co. of Am.,  101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st Cir.  1996); accord In          _________________                                       ______ __                                        ____________________               1The underlying facts  are limned in  an earlier opinion  of          this court.   See Acevedo-Villalobos  v. Hernandez, 22  F.3d 384,                        ___ __________________     _________          385 (1st Cir. 1994).                                          2          re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36,  38 (1st          __________________________________________          Cir. 1993).  Hence, we  affirm the judgment for substantially the          reasons  set  forth  in  the  lower  court's  discussion  of  the          discretionary  function exception  to the  FTCA.   See  Gonzalez-                                                             ___  _________          Figueroa, 1997 WL 117750, at *5-7.  We add only a small coda.          ________                    It is not our role to pass judgment upon the wisdom (or          lack of wisdom) of  the housing policies which PRPHA and HUD have          decided  to follow.   Rather, our  role, in  the context  of this          appeal, is  to determine  only  whether HUD  (the federal  agency          involved)  had  the   statutory  authority  to  enter   into  the          challenged  agreement with PRPHA and whether  it acted within the          realm of  its discretion when  it exercised that authority.   See                                                                        ___          Magee v. United  States, No. 96-2357, 1997 WL 419551,  at *3 (1st          _____    ______________          Cir. July 31, 1997).  Because these questions must be answered in          the affirmative,2 for the reasons already elucidated by the court          below, the FTCA's  discretionary function exception, 28  U.S.C.            2680(a), bars  the maintenance  of the  plaintiffs' action.   See                                                                        ___          Magee, 1997 WL 419551,  at *3.  After all, a  complaint under the          _____          FTCA  cannot survive a  motion to dismiss if  it alleges only the          sort of statutory conduct that  is plainly grounded in the policy          imperatives  of  an  applicable regulatory  regime.    See United                                                                 ___ ______          States v.  Gaubert,  499 U.S.  315, 324-25  (1991); Berkovitz  v.          ______     _______                                  _________                                        ____________________               2We have considered and  rejected, as a matter  of statutory          interpretation,  the plaintiffs' argument that, under 42 U.S.C.            1437d(j)(3)(A),  the Secretary  of HUD  was  required to  declare          PRPHA  in "substantial default" before entering into an agreement          that permits privatization.  The  text of the statute simply will          not bear the weight that the plaintiffs load upon it.                                          3          United States,  486 U.S.  531, 536-37,  (1988); United  States v.          _____________                                   ______________          Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 814 (1984).          ______________                    In  any event, as  the district court  also recognized,          Gonzalez-Figueroa,  1997  WL  117750,  at *4,  the  absence  of a          _________________          comparable cause of action against a private individual precludes          FTCA liability here.                    We need go no further.  The judgment below is summarily          affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                     ___                    Affirmed.  No Costs.                    Affirmed.  No Costs.                    ________   ________                                          4
