Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02632/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bristol Township Police Department
Not Party
John David Brookins
Appellant
Bucks County Detectives Office
Appellee
District Attorney Bucks County
Appellee
Alfred H. Eastlack
Not Party
Diane E. Gibbons
Appellee
Rudolph Rudy Heierling
Not Party
Thomas Mills
Not Party
Robert C. Potts
Appellee

Document Text:

DLD-121 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2632

___________

JOHN DAVID BROOKINS,

Appellant

v.

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

ALFRED H. EASTLACK; RUDOLPH RUDY HEIERLING; 

THOMAS MILLS; BUCKS COUNTY DETECTIVES OFFICE; 

ROBERT C. POTTS; DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUCKS COUNTY; 

DIANE E. GIBBONS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-cv-00252)

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

____________________________________

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

January 28, 2016

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

(Opinion filed: February 25, 2016)

_________

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: 15-2632 Document: 003112217482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
2

Pro se appellant John Brookins appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 

F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

In 1992, Brookins was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of first-degree 

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2014, he instituted an action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court. He alleged, essentially, that the police officers and 

district attorneys involved in his case had ignored evidence that inculpated a different 

suspect and instead prosecuted him despite his innocence. Although he does little to 

identify discrete causes of action, construing his allegations generously, we understand 

him to present claims of false arrest, use of excessive force during arrest and

interrogation, malicious prosecution, a violation of his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963), and a due-process violation. He also purported to raise a state-law 

claim of obstruction of justice under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5101. He requested a variety of 

declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders requiring the police to investigate his 

suggested suspect and to test a pair of gloves for DNA.

The District Court dismissed Brookins’s action, concluding that his federal claims 

were time-barred and that no civil cause of action exists under Pennsylvania for 

obstruction of justice. Brookins filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

Case: 15-2632 Document: 003112217482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
3

We agree with the District Court’s disposition of this case.1 Brookins has not 

claimed that his state conviction has been set aside.

2

 Therefore, his claims are barred to 

the extent that success on the merits would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). This includes his claims alleging malicious prosecution, 

see Heck, 512 U.S. at 484-85; Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 186-87 (3d Cir. 2009)

(en banc), and a Brady violation, see Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536 (2011); 

Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 1999).

3

 We note, however, that these claims 

are properly dismissed without prejudice, and we modify the District Court’s order 

accordingly. See, e.g., Fottler v. United States, 73 F.3d 1064, 1065-66 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Brookins’s remaining claims — that the defendants falsely arrested him, used

excessive force against him, and violated his due-process rights by refusing to test 

evidence for DNA — are not barred by Heck. See Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 

120, 126 n.5 (3d Cir. 1998) (false arrest); Lora-Pena v. FBI, 529 F.3d 503, 506 (3d Cir. 

 

1 We may affirm on any ground apparent in the record. See, e.g., Hughes v. Long, 242 

F.3d 121, 122 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001).

2 Brookins has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court, which 

remains pending. See E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 2:14-cv-2645.

3

In connection with these claims, Brookins asked for an order requiring the police to 

investigate the individual that he believes committed the murder. However, “[t]here is no 

statutory or common law right, much less a constitutional right, to an investigation.” 

Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Capogrosso v. Supreme 

Case: 15-2632 Document: 003112217482 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
4

2008) (excessive force during arrest); Jackson v. Suffolk Cty. Homicide Bureau, 135 F.3d 

254, 257 (2d Cir. 1998) (excessive force after arrest); Skinner, 562 U.S. at 534 (DNA 

testing). They are, however, untimely. In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for 

claims under § 1983 is two years. See Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). 

Brookins’s false-imprisonment claim accrued when he became held pursuant to legal 

process, see Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90 (2007), which occurred in 1991. His 

claims concerning the officers’ use of force accrued when he (allegedly) suffered his 

injuries in 1991. See Kach, 589 F.3d at 634-35; Montgomery, 159 F.3d at 126. Finally, 

his challenge to the Government’s failure to test evidence for DNA accrued, at the latest,

when the state court denied his request for testing on April 28, 2011. See Savory v. 

Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2006). He filed his complaint in this case in 

January 2014, well after the expiration of the two-year limitations period for each of 

these claims. He has offered no basis to toll the statute of limitations as to any of these 

claims, and the District Court therefore properly concluded that they were untimely.

Finally, the District Court correctly ruled that Brookins is not entitled to maintain 

a civil claim under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5101, Pennsylvania’s criminal obstruction-of-

 

Court of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2009) (“individual citizens do not have a 

constitutional right to the prosecution of alleged criminals”).

Case: 15-2632 Document: 003112217482 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
5

justice statute. See D’Errico v. DeFazio, 763 A.2d 424, 430 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000); 

Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A.2d 1337, 1342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987).4

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

 

4 Given the legal failings of Brookins’s complaint, we are satisfied that amendment to the 

complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly 

dismissed the complaint without providing leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview 

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

Case: 15-2632 Document: 003112217482 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/25/2016