Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 F.3d 607 →
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 93-2099
MANUEL MUNIZ-CABRERO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DR. ALEJANDRO RUIZ, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Jesus E. Cuza with whom Vicente & Cuebas was on brief for
_______________ _________________
appellant.
James D. Noel, III with whom Ledesma, Palou & Miranda was on
___________________ __________________________
brief for appellees.
____________________
May 18, 1994
____________________
Stahl, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Manuel
_____________
Muniz Cabrero appeals the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Dr. Alejandro Ruiz
("Ruiz"), Dr. Karen Soto ("Soto"), Dr. Olga Hernandez
("Hernandez"), and Edmundo Carrero ("Carrero"). Because we
agree with the district court's finding that plaintiff's 42
U.S.C 1983 action is time-barred, we affirm.
I.
I.
__
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
________________________________________
The following facts are uncontested. In July 1982,
plaintiff was hired to work at the Sports Complex at the
state-run University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus
("University"). From 1983 to present, plaintiff has served
as the Sports Complex's "Executive Official I," a career
position roughly equivalent to the more familiar title of
Director.1 Plaintiff is also an active member of the New
Progressive Party ("NPP"), whose gubernatorial candidate lost
the general election in November 1984.
In August 1990, Ruiz, an active member of the
Popular Democratic Party ("PDP"), was appointed Chancellor of
the University. Three months after assuming office, Ruiz met
____________________
1. Under Puerto Rico law, employees with career status enjoy
property rights in their continued employment. See Rivera-
___ _______
Ruiz v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 983 F.2d 332, 334 (1st Cir. 1993);
____ _______________
Kauffman v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 841 F.2d 1169, 1173 (1st
________ _____________________
Cir. 1988).
-2-
2
with the University's Administrative Board2 to propose a
reorganization plan. Under the plan, the Sports Complex,
which had always operated as an independent department under
the direct control of the Chancellor, was to be merged with
the Physical Education Department at the University's Arts
and Sciences College.
On November 15, 1990, the Administrative Board
unanimously approved the proposal to be effective December 1,
1990, and subject to review at the conclusion of the 1990-91
academic year.3 On or about November 30, 1990, plaintiff
met with Ruiz and Hernandez, Dean of the Faculty of the
College of Arts and Sciences, to discuss the reorganization.
At that meeting, Ruiz informed plaintiff that, under the new
structure, plaintiff would report to Soto, Director of the
University's Physical Education Department and, in her
absence, to Carrero, Associate Director of Physical
Education. Ruiz also gave plaintiff a letter dated November
30, 1990, which formally detailed the new arrangement.
Between December 1, 1990, and February 20, 1991,
plaintiff missed forty-seven days of work. In his absence,
Soto and Hernandez temporarily took over his
responsibilities, including the review of mail addressed to
____________________
2. Both Ruiz and Hernandez are members of the Administrative
Board.
3. The second semester ended in May 1991.
-3-
3
plaintiff. On April 12, 1991, plaintiff wrote to Soto
stating that although he returned to work as of February 20,
1991, he had not been assigned any tasks. Plaintiff also
complained that the duties he used to perform were now
discharged by Soto and Carrero. Five days later, in a letter
dated April 17, 1991, Soto provided plaintiff with a detailed
description of his responsibilities under the new structure.
In that letter, Soto remarked that the duties as outlined
"follow the provisions of the [personnel form] you signed
with the Campus." Thereafter, on May 1, 1991, plaintiff,
Soto and Carrero met to clarify the functions described in
the April 17 letter. In his final relevant correspondence, a
May 9, 1991, letter to Soto, plaintiff wrote: "After having
evaluated the duties assigned to me it is easy to interpret
that I have been demoted from my position and functions." In
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz, (1st Cir. 1994).
Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz (Muniz-Cabrero v. Ruiz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Owens v. Okure
488 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Levy v. Federal Deposit Insurance
7 F.3d 1054 (First Circuit, 1993)
Isadore GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee
607 F.2d 1014 (First Circuit, 1979)
Angel R. De Leon Otero v. Maria L. Rubero
820 F.2d 18 (First Circuit, 1987)
Earl Johnson v. General Electric
840 F.2d 132 (First Circuit, 1988)
Bessie A. Kauffman v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company
841 F.2d 1169 (First Circuit, 1988)
Donald A. JENSEN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Anthony M. FRANK, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant, Appellee
912 F.2d 517 (First Circuit, 1990)
Juan Rivera-Muriente v. Juan Agosto-Alicea
959 F.2d 349 (First Circuit, 1992)
Pedro L. Rodriguez-Pinto v. Cirilo Tirado-Delgado
982 F.2d 34 (First Circuit, 1993)
Damaris Rivera-Ruiz v. Leonardo Gonzalez-Rivera, Etc.
983 F.2d 332 (First Circuit, 1993)
Wandwossen Kassaye v. Bryant College
999 F.2d 603 (First Circuit, 1993)
Velazquez v. Chardon
736 F.2d 831 (First Circuit, 1984)