Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-01217
08-15-2022
JAMES ROBERT JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA KREISER, et al., Defendants.
RAMBO, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR., United States Magistrate Judge.
On August 5, 2022, the court received and lodged a pro se complaint signed by the plaintiff, James Robert Jackson, together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1; Doc. 2.) Contemporaneously with this order, we have granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the original pro se complaint has been deemed filed.
The plaintiff claims that the defendants deprived him of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures in connection with his arrest and prosecution for DUI and other misdemeanor and summary offenses. The plaintiff's pro se complaint invokes Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as the basis for his claims, but the defendants named are state actors, not federal officials. Thus, we have liberally construed the complaint as asserting false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See generally Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-46 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing a federal court's obligation to liberally construe the filings of pro se litigants).
Based on the pro se complaint and attached exhibits, the material facts of this case are clear. On or before October 28, 2019, the plaintiff was arrested and charged for driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, resisting arrest, public drunkenness, and making a noise disturbance. Following a preliminary hearing on October 28, 2019, a state magisterial district judge found probable cause to hold the case over to the court of common pleas. On March 10, 2020, the state criminal case was dismissed in its entirety pursuant to the prosecutor's motion for nolle prosequi.
The complaint itself alleges that the events giving rise to his claims arose on October 28, 2019. The attached exhibits include a copy of one page from the state court docket record in the dismissed case against Jackson. It indicates an offense date of May 11, 2019, and a preliminary hearing date of October 28, 2019. Because it is immaterial which of these two dates we treat as the date of Jackson's arrest, we have used the date specifically alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint.
Based on the aforementioned dates, however, the plaintiff's claims are all barred by the statute of limitations. Federal civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are subject to Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions. Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74, 78-79 (3d Cir. 1989); see also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524.
A claim for false arrest accrues on the date of arrest, and a claim for false imprisonment accrues on the date the plaintiff is bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388-91 (2007); Bressi v. Brennen, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01742, 2018 WL 3596861, at *6 (M.D. Pa. July 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted by 2018 WL 3584687 (M.D. Pa. July 26, 2018); Collins v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 16-5671, 2018 WL 1980079, at *2-*3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2018). Here, the plaintiff's arrest occurred on or before October 28, 2019, and the period of his allegedly false imprisonment ended when a preliminary hearing was held before a state magisterial district judge on that same date, October 28, 2019. As noted above, the complaint in this action was constructively filed on August 5, 2022, approximately nine months after the limitations period expired for Jackson's § 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims.
Meanwhile, a claim for malicious prosecution accrues on the date when the underlying criminal proceedings are resolved in the plaintiff's favor. McDonough v. Smith, 139 S.Ct. 2149, 2156 (2019); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994); Randall v. City of Philadelphia Law Dep't, 919 F.3d 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2019). Here, the underlying criminal proceedings were resolved in the plaintiff's favor when the charges were nolle prossed and dismissed by the state trial court on March 10, 2020. As noted above, the complaint in this action was constructively filed on August 5, 2022, approximately five months after the limitations period expired for Jackson's § 1983 malicious prosecution claim.
Although the running of a statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, which generally must be raised by way of answer to the complaint, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c), where that defense is obvious on the face of the complaint and no development of the record is necessary, a court may sua sponte dismiss a time-barred complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Johnstone v. United States, 980 F.Supp. 148, 154 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
Therefore, we recommend that the plaintiff's § 1983 false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, because it is clear from the facts alleged in the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto that amendment would be futile, we recommend that these claims be dismissed without leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that:
1. This action be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and
2. The clerk be directed to mark this case as CLOSED.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated August 15, 2022. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.