Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03567/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03567-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Philadelphia
Non-Participating
Caitlin McLaughlin
Appellee
Tyrone Peele
Appellant

Document Text:

DLD-126 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3567

___________

TYRONE PEELE,

We the People (In Rem), 

Appellant

v.

CAITLIN MCLAUGHLIN, Oarike Iffucker (Agent); 

PHILADELPHIA, (PA) AND COUNTY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-15-cv-03804)

District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter

____________________________________

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

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 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: 15-3567 Document: 003112216977 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
Tyrone Peele, a state prisoner, appeals from an order of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing as legally frivolous his civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will summarily affirm.

In 1999, Peele was convicted in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas of rape 

and corruption of minors. He was sentenced to a term of five to ten years of 

imprisonment, to be followed by five years of probation. Following his release on 

probation, Peele was arrested in November 2011 on charges of witness intimidation and 

assault. In October 2012, Peele was convicted of those charges and sentenced to a term 

of eleven to twenty-two years of imprisonment.

In July 2015, Peele filed an action in the District Court pursuant to § 1983 against 

Caitlin McLaughlin, his probation officer, and the City of Philadelphia. He was later 

granted leave to file an amended complaint. In his amended complaint, Peele alleged that 

McLaughlin filed a false police report in October 2011, which led to his arrest and 

subsequent conviction on charges of witness intimidation and assault. Upon review of 

the amended complaint, the District Court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 

U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This appeal followed.1 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous. See Roman v. Jeffes, 

 

1 Peele has filed in this Court a motion for injunctive relief seeking his immediate release, 

a motion seeking leave to call and confront witnesses, and several documents in support 

of his appeal.

Case: 15-3567 Document: 003112216977 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if 

there is no substantial question presented by the appeal. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and 

I.O.P. 10.6.

This appeal presents no substantial question. The District Court correctly 

determined that Peele’s claims against McLaughlin are barred by the two-year statute of 

limitations in Pennsylvania. Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, 

a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint under § 1915(e) where the defense is 

obvious from the complaint and no development of the factual record is required. See, 

e.g., Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006). The statute of limitations 

for a § 1983 claim arising in Pennsylvania is two years. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2); 

Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). A cause of action under § 1983 

“accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which [his] 

action is based.” Sameric Corp. of Del. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d 

Cir. 1998). 

Although Peele alleged that McLaughlin filed a false police report on October 11, 

2011, he did not commence his civil action until July 2015. Because Peele’s allegations 

suggest that he knew of the alleged wrongdoing at the time it occurred, his claims against 

McLaughlin are time-barred. And, because Peele’s claims against the City of

Philadelphia are based upon that same alleged misconduct, they are likewise timeCase: 15-3567 Document: 003112216977 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2016
barred.

2

 

Given that the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm 

the District Court’s judgment. Peele’s remaining motions are denied.

 

2 Moreover, as the District Court noted, Peele’s claims against the City also fail under the

dictates of Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). In 

Monell, the Supreme Court determined that a municipality cannot be held liable in a

§ 1983 action on a theory of respondeat superior. 436 U.S. at 694. Instead, liability may 

be imposed only where it can be shown that the municipality had a policy, regulation, 

custom, or practice that led to the alleged constitutional violation. See Mulholland v. 

Gov’t Cty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227, 237 (3d Cir. 2013). Peele’s amended complaint 

contained no allegations whatsoever of a policy, custom, or practice of the City that 

resulted in the alleged harm.

Case: 15-3567 Document: 003112216977 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/25/2016