
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 24, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2230                              SIGFRIDO TORRES LAZARINI,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                 [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Rafael A. Oliveras Lopez De Victoria on brief for appellant.            ____________________________________            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del            _____________                               ______________________        Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.        ___                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  After careful review of the briefs and                      __________            the record, we conclude that there is no substantial question            presented  in this  appeal  and that  summary disposition  is            appropriate.   The  district court correctly  determined that            plaintiff's  claim  was  time-barred,  and we  add  only  the            following comments.                 Although plaintiff's 1990 claim  may have been timely as            to those few incidents occurring in 1989  and 1990, plaintiff            did  not identify any of  those more recent  incidents as the            cause of significant  harm.  Accordingly,  in the context  of            this appeal,  we  do not  consider  them to  be  individually            actionable torts  that should survive the government's motion            to dismiss.                   In  any case, plaintiff does not appear to state a claim            based  on  any  individual  incidents; instead,  as  we  read            plaintiff's complaint and other filings, his underlying claim            is one  of  institutional discrimination  manifesting  itself            from  time to time since  1953 in various  actions by various            Veterans  Administration personnel.   Such  a claim  might be            timely under  the  Federal  Tort  Claims  Act,  28  U.S.C.               2401(b),  if the  claim alleged  a "continuing  tort" and  at            least  one  tortious  action  occurred within  the  statutory            limitations  period.    See,  e.g., Havens  Realty  Corp.  v.                                    __________  _____________________            Coleman, 455  U.S. 363, 380-81 (1982);  Johnson v. Rodriguez,            _______                                 _______    _________            943 F.2d 104,  108 (1st  Cir. 1991), cert.  denied, 502  U.S.                                                 _____________                                         -2-            1063  (1992);  Page v.  United States,  729 F.2d  818, 818-19                           ____     _____________            (D.C.  Cir. 1984); Gross v. United States, 676 F.2d 295, 299-                               _____    _____________            300 (8th Cir. 1982).                   We agree with the  district court that plaintiff's claim            cannot  be  characterized as  a  "continuing  tort," in  that            plaintiff made  no cognizable  showing of any  relation among            the various acts complained of, even assuming that those acts            were tortious.   Plaintiff's own unsupported speculation  and            improbable  inference  about  the  VA's "plan"  to  deny  him            treatment and  benefits was  not sufficient to  withstand the            government's motion for summary judgment.   See Mack v. Great                                                        ___ ____    _____            Atlantic  & Pacific Tea Co.,  871 F.2d 179,  182-83 (1st Cir.            ___________________________            1989)  (mere   vague  references   concerning  a   policy  of            discrimination  are  not  sufficient);  Medina-Munoz  v. R.J.                                                    ____________     ____            Reynolds  Tobacco  Co.,  896  F.2d  5,  8  (1st   Cir.  1990)            ______________________            (similar).  Therefore, plaintiff's complaint based on all the            events  stretching back over  more than  forty years  was not            timely filed, and the district court properly granted summary            judgment for the government.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                         -3-
