[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 99-2054

ANGEL LUIS BURGOS-HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

ZOE LABOY; JORGE COLLAZO-TORRES; JAIME RIVERA; PEDRO J. RODRIGUEZ-FORTIER; CARMEN L. CORREA-GOMEZ,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.

Angel Luis Burgos-Hernandez on brief pro se. Gustavo A. Gelpi, Solicitor General, Rosa N. Russe Garcia, Deputy Solicitor General, and Sigfredo Rodriguez-Isaac, Assistant Solicitor General, on brief for appellees.

December 4, 2000 Per Curiam. Angel Luis Burgos-Hernandez, a

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico prisoner, appeals pro se from

the dismissal of his lawsuit brought pursuant to

. The district court interpreted the complaint to be

limited to a challenge to Burgos-Hernandez's transfer in

1981 from a prison in Puerto Rico to a federal facility in

Pennsylvania. Burgos-Hernandez makes no argument that this

interpretation was too narrow. The court concluded that the

transfer claim is barred by the one-year statute of

limitations applicable to § 1983 actions in Puerto Rico. We

agree.

Burgos-Hernandez's suggestion that his transfer

claim survives on a continuing violation theory is

meritless. The argument overlooks what "we have termed the

'critical distinction' between a continuing act and a

singular act that brings continuing consequences in its

roiled wake." Gilbert v. City of Cambridge,

(1st Cir. 1991) (quoting Altair Corp. v. Pesquera de

Busquets,

(1st Cir. 1985)). The transfer was

a discrete event that occurred in 1981. Burgos-Hernandez

cannot avoid the limitations period by claiming continuing

adverse effects from the transfer.1

1The alleged continuing adverse effects of the transfer include lack of access to Puerto Rico legal materials and denial Affirmed.

of good-time credits. Our disposition is without prejudice to Burgos-Hernandez pursuing these matters as separate issues (i.e., apart from the transfer decision) in a new action(s). We express no opinion as to whether Burgos-Hernandez has viable, separate claims or whether the denial of good-time credits can be pursued in a § 1983 action (as opposed to habeas proceeding).

-3-