2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-7-2012

Waliyyuddin Abdullah v. Thomas Jefferson Univ

Hosp

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2811

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Waliyyuddin Abdullah v. Thomas Jefferson Univ Hosp" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 593.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/593
GLD-241 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2811

___________

WALIYYUDDIN ABDULLAH,

Appellant

v.

THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; BENJAMIN GOCIAL, DR.; 

ALEX HART, DR.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-12-cv-02920)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 

10.6

July 26, 2012

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 7, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Waliyyuddin Abdullah commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against 

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and two doctors, claiming that, on October 21, 

1982, the defendants administered medical treatment to his newborn son that caused 
2

injuries and led to the child’s death three months later. Abdullah sought damages for an 

alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as well as violations of the First, Seventh, and 

Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted in forma pauperis status and 

dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e), finding that the suit was

time-barred under the statute of limitations. The District Court also noted that the lack of 

diversity among the parties precluded jurisdiction over any state-law claims for medical 

malpractice. Abdullah appeals. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. Our review is plenary. See Allah v. 

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). 

The District Court correctly concluded that this suit is barred. As explained by the 

District Court, Abdullah’s claims are plainly time-barred under the statute of limitations. 

See Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 382-84 (2004) (holding four-year 

statute of limitations governs § 1981 claims based on amended version of § 1981; 

otherwise, most analogous state limitations period governs); Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 

F.3d 201, 206 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations 

governs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims). Accordingly, because the appeal does not present a 

substantial question, we will affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.1

 

1 Although we need not reach the issue, Abdullah’s complaint indicated that he has

filed numerous lawsuits based on the events in question, suggesting that his claims would 

be precluded even if they were timely.