Opinion
No. 03-5037.
September 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants Temple University Hospital, Paul Boerhringer, Gloria Johnson, Sergeant Roberts, James Savage, Pitro Miazzo, and Mahrukh Siddiqui (the "Temple Defendants") have moved to dismiss the claims against them as being asserted outside the statute of limitations. Because Plaintiff waited too long in filing suit, the motion will be granted. In addition, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed against the remaining Defendants, the City of Philadelphia, Kia Floyd, Stephanie Marsh, the Defender's Association of Philadelphia, and Luna Pattela, because Plaintiff never effected proper service and because the Amended Complaint alleges no claims against them.
The Temple Defendants filed their motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but because they already answered the complaint I will treat it as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). In any event, no material outside the pleadings need be considered, and all of Plaintiff's allegations are accepted as true for purposes of the motion.
The Amended Complaint, to the extent it is comprehensible, alleges that Plaintiff entered Temple Hospital on September 4, 2001, and at approximately 1:00 p.m. was assaulted by several of the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that she was falsely accused, kidnapped, stolen from, forced to ingest foreign object, and then released after being held for "several days and many hours."
The statute of limitations for the tort and constitutional claims asserted by Plaintiff is two years. See Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74, 78 (3d Cir. 1989). "Claims arising from false arrest, false imprisonment and excessive force used in effectuating an arrest begin to accrue on the date of the arrest." Campbell v. Kelly, 2003 Westlaw 21660024 * 2 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2003) (citing cases). Therefore, Plaintiff had two years from September 4, 2001 to file suit. Because she waited until September 5, 2003, her complaint is untimely and must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Even if the statute of limitations did not bar the claims against the non-Temple Defendants, Plaintiff never effected proper service and never alleged any cognizable claims against them, despite being given an opportunity to amend her complaint. The action will be dismissed as to these Defendants as well.
An order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of August, 2004, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss, and the response thereto,IT is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED as to ALL DEFENDANTS. The Clerk is directed to mark the case CLOSED.