Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-7431
November 19, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, has filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against Baltimore County Detectives Ruby Ernest Gary and Craig S. Schrott. Plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 2000, the defendants provided perjured testimony while acting as government witnesses at his criminal trial presided over by the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
With his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which will be granted. However, plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed for the reasons which follow.
I. DISCUSSION
A. The Statute of Limitations
The Supreme Court has held that § 1983 claims are subject to the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985). The statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is two years. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. Unless otherwise tolled, the limitations period on § 1983 claims begins to run when the claimant "knew or had reason to know of the injury that constitutes the basis of th[e] action."Sandutch v. Muroski, 684 F.2d 252, 254 (3d Cir. 1982) (per curiam) Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated at his criminal trial on May 30, 2000, however, the instant complaint was not filed in this Court until September 23, 2002. Because plaintiff's complaint was filed more than two years after the alleged violations, his claims are now time-barred, and must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
B. Witness Immunity
Even if this complaint were not time barred, it would be dismissed as legally frivolous because witnesses, governmental or otherwise, may not be sued for damages under § 1983. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)
II. CONCLUSION
Because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) is appropriate. An order dismissing this complaint follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of November, 2002, in accordance with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and,
2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.