Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-03761/USCOURTS-ca3-16-03761-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-3761

___________

DAVID B. CASSELL,

Appellant

v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; 12TH DISTRICT; 5TH DISTRICT

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-04534)

District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 23, 2017

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 24, 2017)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-3761 Document: 003112519995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2017
2

David Cassell appeals pro se from the District Court’s orders dismissing his 

second amended complaint and denying reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we 

will affirm.

On August 18, 2016, Cassell sought to file a civil rights complaint in forma 

pauperis, alleging injuries incurred in incidents with police and seeking $900 million in 

damages. From the complaint, it was unclear when exactly the events giving rise to his 

claim occurred; he noted that he had problems between 2003 and 2015 and also that he 

was last injured in June 2014. The District Court granted Cassell in forma pauperis

status and dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Noting the relevant 

statute of limitations, the District Court permitted Cassell to amend his complaint to 

present claims that arose within the two years before the filing of his complaint.1 Cassell 

filed an amended complaint that provided no greater clarity. The District Court 

dismissed it but again permitted amendment. Cassell filed a second amended complaint. 

Although he included additional information about the defendants and their conduct, he 

still did not provide sufficient clarity about when the challenged events took place. The 

District Court dismissed the second amended complaint but granted leave to file a third 

amended complaint. It explained that Cassell needed to specify the date on which the 

events giving rise to his claims occurred. In response, Cassell submitted a letter to the 

court explaining that the incident occurred on July 15, 2003, and that he did not have any 

 

1 The District Court also provided guidance about how to correct other possible 

deficiencies in his complaint. 

Case: 16-3761 Document: 003112519995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2017
3

additional materials to present. The District Court then dismissed the action. Cassell 

filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. Cassell now appeals.2

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3 We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal order, see Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d 

Cir. 2000), and we review for abuse of discretion its order denying Cassell’s motion for 

reconsideration, see Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 416 (3d Cir. 2015).

The District Court properly concluded that Cassell’s claims are time-barred. The 

Court could dismiss the claims sua sponte because it was obvious from the face of the 

second amended complaint (as clarified by Cassell’s statements in his letter) that the 

claims were filed outside the relevant statute of limitations. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 

F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006). The statute of limitations for Cassell’s action is 

governed by the two-year personal injury statute of limitations for Pennsylvania, the state 

in which the cause of action accrued. O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 126 

(3d Cir. 2006); Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 368-69 (3d Cir. 2000); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 

 

2 Cassell also filed a motion to compel Appellees, who are not participating in the appeal, 

to respond to his informal brief. Thereafter, he filed a document seeking to “reopen his 

case,” requesting oral argument, and asking for an order requiring the U.S. Marshals 

Service to serve Appellees.

3

In his brief, Cassell mentions an order from another case entered in 2007. To the extent 

he appeals from this order, we do not have jurisdiction over it, see Fed. R. App. P. 4; 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007) (explaining that the time limit for 

appeals is mandatory and jurisdictional), and we do not review it. 

Case: 16-3761 Document: 003112519995 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/24/2017
4

Ann. § 5524. Ultimately, Cassell revealed that he incurred his injuries outside the 

limitations period. Accordingly, his claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 

We also discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s order denying 

Cassell’s motion for reconsideration because Cassell did not present any valid basis for 

reconsideration. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 

669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is “to 

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence”) (citation 

omitted). 

Finally, to the extent that Cassell alleges in his brief that the District Judge 

dismissed his complaint because he was racist, we find no support for this contention in 

the record. To the contrary, it appears that the District Judge conducted the case 

professionally and that his rulings were based on well-established law. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny all of 

Cassell’s pending requests. 

Case: 16-3761 Document: 003112519995 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/24/2017