Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03486/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03486-0/pdf.json

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

---

DLD-181 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3486

___________

ANDREW J. ALLAM, SR.,

Appellant

v.

ROBYN SOARES; KATIE BOYSEN;

TAMMY MCCOLLOUGH; CONNIE CIERVO;

PIKE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-14-cv-02381)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 17, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and SLOVITER1, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 3, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

 1 The Honorable Dolores K. Sloviter participated in the decision of this case. Judge Sloviter assumed 

inactive status on April 4, 2016 after the submission date, but before the filing of the opinion. This 

opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) and Third Circuit I.O.P. Chapter 

12.

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

precedent.

Case: 15-3486 Document: 003112280842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
2

_________

PER CURIAM

Andrew Allam, Sr. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for 

the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed his complaint for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In her Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), the Magistrate Judge noted that 

Allam’s claims (both those in his original complaint and those in his proposed amended 

complaint) were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for civil rights violations. 

Allam filed objections to the R&R claiming, among other things, that the Court should 

use the “residual” statute of limitations. The District Court adopted the R&R and 

dismissed the complaint, finding Allam’s objections to be without merit. Allam timely 

appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary review of a 

district court decision dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. Roman v. 

Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990); Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 

2000). A complaint fails to state a claim if, accepting all well-pled factual allegations as 

true, the allegations do not “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Bistrian v. 

Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009)).

We agree with the District Court that it is apparent from Allam’s complaint (and 

his proposed amended complaint) that his claims are time-barred. The incidents in his 

Case: 15-3486 Document: 003112280842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
3

complaint occurred in 2009 and 2010, but he did not file his complaint until December of 

2014. The District Court properly held that a two-year period of limitations applies to 

Allam’s claims that his civil rights were violated when his children were removed from 

his home, see Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-year period of 

limitations applies for § 1983 action arising in Pennsylvania), and we agree that 

amendment would be futile.3

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Allam’s 

motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

 3 While a district court generally must give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend a 

complaint before dismissing it for failure to state a claim, opportunity to amend is not 

required if, as here, amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 

293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). In his objections, Allam argued that the violation of 

his rights continued until March 6, 2012, when his children were adopted. But even that 

date is beyond the period of limitations. And Allam does not in any way challenge the 

untimeliness determination in his argument in support of appeal.

Case: 15-3486 Document: 003112280842 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2016