2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-4-2010 

# V e rlin Alexande r v

. O rl ando F let che r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4288

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V e rl in Alex ande r v

. Orl ando Fle t che r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1793. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1793CL D- 1 1 3 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 4288 VERL I N ALEXANDER, A ppel l ant

v. U. S. MAR SHALORLANDO F LET CH ER; U. S. MAR SHALJOHNDO E 2 ; U.S. MARSHALJ OHN DO E 3; ATF AGENT JOHN DOE 1; AT F AGEN T JOH

N D OE2; AT F AGEN T JOH

N D OE3; FB IAGENT JOHN DOE 1; F B IAGEN T JOH

N D OE2; FB IAGENT JOHN DOE 3; J OHN DO E 1, Dela

ware State Police Of

ficer; J OHN DO E 2, Dela

ware State Police Of

ficer; J OHN DO E 3, Dela

ware State Police Of

ficer; J OHN DO E 1, Dela

ware Probation and Parole Off icer ; J OHN DO E 2, Dela

ware Probation and Parole Off icer ; J OHN DO E 3, Dela

ware Probation and Parole Off icer ; DELAWARE DEA AGENTJ OHN DO E 1; DELAWARE DEA AGENTJ OHN DO E 2; DELAWARE DEA AGENTJ OHN DO E 3 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 00436) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February4, 20102 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 4, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM V e rlin A lex a n d e r a p p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g h is c iv il righ ts a c tio n . W e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . I. O n J une 11, 2009, A l exande rfi l ed a pr o s e ci vi l r i ght s act i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e aga i ns tU ni t ed St at es M ar s hal O r l ando Fl et cherand s event een J ohn D oe def endant s , pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, cl ai m i ng t hat th e d e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss a n d e q u a l p ro tec tio n rig h ts in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is a l l e g e d l yu n l a wf

u l a r r e s t , s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e , a n d e x t r a d i t i o n o n Oc t o b e r2 7 , 2 0 0 6 . On Sept ember30, 2009, pur s uantt o i t s s cr eeni ng author i t yunder28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) and 1915A ( b) ( 1) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntas barr ed b yth e a p p lic a b le lim ita tio n p e ri o d f o r § 1 9 8 3 c la im s . A le x a n d e r t im e ly ap p e a le d . II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this ap p ea l un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r rev iew o v er a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s u a s p o n te d is m is s a l o f a c o m p la in t f

o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im is p le n a ry.A lex a n d e r a lleg e s th a t ag e n ts o f th e sta te o f

D e law a re u n law f

u llya rre ste d h im in 1 P enn sy l van i a. T he D i stri ctC ou rtapp l i ed the D el aw are s t atute of l i m i t at i on s t o these cl ai m s; ho w ever, t he resul ti s the sam e as und er Penn sy l van i a’s st atute of l i m i t at i on s, w h ic h is a ls o tw o y e a rs f o r c la im s a ri s in g u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . C o m p a re 1 0 D e l. C o d e A n n . § 8 1 1 9 , an d 4 2 P a. C . S . A . § 5 5 2 4 (7). 3 A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I n det erm i ni ng w hethera di s t r i ct c o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d a c o m p lain t u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ), w e a re re q u ire d to “ a c c e p t all fac tual al l egat i ons as t rue, cons t rue the compl ai nti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , t he pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Phi l l i ps v. C ount yof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (qu o ti n g P ink er v . R o ch e H o lding s L td., 2 9 2 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 3 7 4 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 )); s ee a l s o B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 554- 56 ( 2007) . W e mayt ake s um m aryact i on i f the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 24. 7; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . III . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yd ism issed A lexa n d er’s claim u n d er § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ), as hi s cl ai m l acke d an ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw . A l exande r ’ s § 1983 cl ai m s ar e governed by t he per s onal i nj ur ys t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n Penns y l vani a, t he s t at e i n w hi ch hi s caus e of act i on acc rued. See Lake v A r nol d, 232 F. 3d 360, 368 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T he s t atut e of 1 l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rc l a i ms a r i s i n g u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 i n P e n n s y l v a n i a i s t wo y e a r s . I d . An yc l a i ms f ile d o u ts id e th is p e ri o d a re u n tim e ly. A s ect i on 1983 caus e of a ct i on acc rues , and the appl i cabl e l i m i t at i ons per i odT o the ext ent, i f any , t hat A l exan der’ s cl ai m can b e charact eri zed as o ne o f fals e 2 i m pr i s onm ent , t hi s cl ai m i s al s o t i m e barr ed. T he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run a g a in st a n a c tio n f

o r f a lse im p riso n m e n t w h e n th e in d iv id u a l is re lea se d , o r b e c o m e s h e ld pur s uantt o l egal pr oces s . See W al l ace v. K at o, 549 U . S. 384, 389 ( 2007) . W e t ake j udi ci al not i ce of

t he fa ctt hatA l exande rw as comm i t t ed t o t he D epart m entof C or r ect i ons i n defa ul tof bai l on O ct ober27, 2006, and w as arr ai gned on N ovember6, 2006. ( See S tat e o f D elaw are v . V erli n J. A lexa n d er, Su p erior C o u rtC ri m inal D o ck et). A lexa n d er’s fal s e i m pr i s onm entcl ai m t hus acc rued no l at ert han N ovember6, 2008. See W al l ace , 549 U .S . a t 3 9 1 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatt he compl ai ntw as fi l ed on the dat e i tw as s i gned, t he 3 ear l i es tdat e pos s i bl e thati tcoul d have be en del i ver ed t o pr i s on offi ci al s form ai l i ng. See H o u ston v . L ac k , 4 8 7 U . S . 2 6 6 (19 8 8 ); B u rns v . M o rt o n , 1 3 4 F . 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). B eca us e A l exande rw as pr ocee di ng i n form a paupe r i s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as ent i t l ed 4 t o r eac h t he l i m i t at i ons ques t i on, w hi ch w as obvi ous fr om t he compl ai ntand r equi r ed no fa ctua l dev elop m en t. S ee F o g le v. P ierson , 4 3 5 F . 3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 4 begi ns t o run, w hen the pl ai nt i ff “ knew ors houl d have know n of the i nj ur yupon w hi ch i t s act i on i s bas ed. ” Samer i c C orp. of D el . , I nc. v. C i t yof Phi l a. , 142 F. 3d 582, 599 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . A l exande r ’ s cl ai m s s t em from hi s al l egedl yunl aw ful arr es t , w hi ch t ook pl ace o n Oc t o b e r2 7 , 2 0 0 6 . ( Co mp l . 6 . ) On t h a td a t e , Al e x a n d e rk n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn o f th e c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s u p o n w h ich h is c laim s a re b a se d . A lex a n d e r d id n o t f ile 2 hi s compl ai ntunt i l J une 5, 2009, appr oxi m at el ys even mont hs aft ert he expi r at i on of the t w o- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hat 3 A l exan der’ s com plai nt w as barr ed o n it s face byt he ap pli cable s t atute of l i m i t at i on s. 4 A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m .