Conjugal Partnership Acevedo-Príncipe v. United States, 768 F.3d 51

Santiago Acevedo-Pérez was an ICE special agent reassigned from San Juan to DHS headquarters in 2005; he accepted but later retired on March 3, 2006, after a denied relocation extension.
On June 1, 2006 Acevedo filed an EEO complaint alleging age and national-origin discrimination (with an addendum mentioning alleged improper use of funds as background).
The EEO denied his claims and issued a "Notice of Appeal Rights" (Right-to-Sue letter) received by Acevedo on July 1, 2009.
Acevedo filed suit in federal court on September 30, 2009, asserting ADEA, Title VII, § 1983, FTCA, and Puerto Rico law claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the discrimination claims time-barred, Acevedo failed to administratively present an FTCA claim, § 1983 and Puerto Rico-law tort claims time-barred, and declined to retain pendent jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of ADEA/Title VII suit	Acevedo argued his suit was timely	Defendants argued suit was filed after the 90-day Right-to-Sue period	Held: Suit filed 91 days after notice; discrimination claims untimely and dismissed
FTCA exhaustion	Acevedo contended the EEO addendum served as an administrative FTCA claim	Defendants argued FTCA claim was never presented to the agency as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)	Held: Addendum only supported EEO discrimination claims; FTCA not presented and cannot be pursued
§ 1983 due-process claim accrual and limitations	Acevedo argued he was deprived of a property interest (job) without due process	Defendants argued § 1983 borrows Puerto Rico's one-year limitations and accrual occurred when Acevedo retired in 2006	Held: Claim accrued in March 2006; filed years later and is time-barred
Puerto Rico-law torts and pendent jurisdiction	Acevedo sought to proceed on Articles 1802/1803 claims	Defendants argued federal claims failed and local tort claims share the same one-year bar	Held: District court properly dismissed local-law claims and declined pendent jurisdiction; they are also time-barred

Dominguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, 202 F.3d 424 (1st Cir. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2005) (§ 1983 borrows state statute of limitations)
Morán Vega v. Cruz Burgos, 537 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2008) (federal accrual rule for § 1983 claims)
Rodriguez Narvaez v. Nazario, 895 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1990) (Puerto Rico one-year limitations for tort actions)
Lares Group II v. Tobin, 221 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2000) (district court discretion over pendent jurisdiction)
Santiago v. Puerto Rico, 655 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2011) (Puerto Rico treated as functional equivalent of a state for § 1983 limitations)