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 Third C ir c uit 6-7-2010 

# D aley v . U S D i s t C t DE P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3183

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by an authori 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 more 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 " D aley v . U S Di s t C t DE " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1185. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1185BL D- 1 6 6 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- 3183

___________ J O H N R . D A L E Y , J R ., a /k /a J o h n P ic k e ri n g -G e o rg e , a /k /a J o h n T . P iq u in -G e o rg e , a/k/ a J ohn T . G eor ge, A ppel l ant v. U. S. DI STRI CT CO UR T, DI STRI CT O F DELAW AR E; U .S . D IS T R IC T C O U R T , S O U T H E R N D IS T R IC T O F T E X A S ;

UNI TE D ST ATE S ATT ORNEY OFF I CE

____________________________________ 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- 00218) 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 A pr i l 8, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J une 7, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

P E R C UR I AM J ohn R . D al ey , J r . appea l s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D is tr ic t o f

D e la w a re (“ D e la w a re D is tr ic t C o u rt ” ) d is m is s in g h is c iv il r ig h ts c o m p la in t. U p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . T h e re f o re , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. S e e 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 . I n M ay2004, D al eyfi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Sout hern D i s tr i ctof Texas ( “Texas D i s tr i ctC our t ”) , s eeki ng the r eturn of $300, 000 all eg ed lyseize d in 1 9 9 1 b yag en ts of the D rug E n fo rce m en t A d m inistrati o n at an airpo rt i n H ous t on, T exas . H e al s o s ought$14, 890 i n i nt er es tand att orney s ’ fee s . T he Texas D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatD al ey ’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed bythe appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons and di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntas fr i vol ous under§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . See D al ey v. U ni t ed St at es D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s tr at i on, C i v. N o. H - 04- 1914 ( S. D . T ex. M ay 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 ). D a le y ’s a p p e a l w a s d is m is s e d in J u ly 2 0 0 7 f o r f a ilu re to p a yth e d o c k e tin g f e e . D al eyfi l ed the pr es entcompl ai nti n M ar ch 2009, ar gui ng thatthe s ei zur e of the m oneyw as “def

ect i ve” be caus e he di d notr ece i ve “not i ce [ or ] a hea r i ng befor e the i s s uance of w arr ant s s ei zi ng r eal pr operty . ” H e r eques t ed thatthe D el aw ar e D i s tr i ct C our t“s etas i de the for fei tur e dec l ar at i on and or der[the D E A ] ei thert o r eturn theW e cons true D al ey ’ s cl ai m s as bei ng br oughtunderB i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed 1 A gent s of the Feder al B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) . See Pena v. U ni t ed St at es , 157 F. 3d 984, 987 ( 5th C i r . 1998) ( obs ervi ng thatA ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forthe re tu rn o f s e iz e d p ro p e rt yp re s e n te d th e f a c ts n e c e s s a ry f

o r a B iv e n s a c tio n ). 3 property. . . or com m ence judici al forfei ture” proceed i ng s. T o sup po rthis al l egati on s, 1 D a le ys o u g h t d is c o v e ry a n d in c a m e ra in s p e c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts re la te d to th e s e iz u re . D al eynamed as defe ndant s the D el aw ar e D i s tr i ctC our t , the Texas D i s tr i ctC our t , and uns peci fi ed U ni t ed St at es A t t orney s O ffi ces . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt pur s uantt o § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) , concl udi ng the def endant s w er e i m m une fr om s ui t , s ee F e d e ra l D e p o sit In su ra n c e C o rp . v . M e y e r, 5 1 0 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 7 5 (1 9 9 4 ), an d th a t h is compl ai ntdupl i cat ed the al l egat i ons m ade i n the Texas D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs , s ee P ittm a n v . M o o re , 9 8 0 F .2 d 9 9 4 , 9 9 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). D a le ya p p e a le d . W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1, and exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe D el aw ar e D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e mayaff i r m on anybas i s s uppor t ed by the re co rd. S ee F airview T o w n sh ip v . E P A , 7 7 3 F . 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 5 n . 1 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). B eca us e w e have gr ant ed D al eyi n form a paupe r i s s t atus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915, w e m u st d ism iss th e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) if it l a c k s a n a rg u a b le b a sis in f a c t o r la w . S e e N e itzk e v . W ill iam s, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). W e m a ysu m m a rily a f f ir m if th e a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . S e e 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 . Th e s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s f

o rDa l e y ’ s c l a i ms , a s f

o rc l a i ms a r i s i n g u n d e r4 2 U. S . C.T he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons forper s onal i nj ur i es i n D el aw ar e i s al s o tw o y ear s . See 10 2 D e l. C o d e A n n . § 8 1 1 9 ; M c D o w e ll v . D e l. S ta te P o lic e , 8 8 F .3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). E ven i f w e cons trued D al ey ’ s compl ai ntas a ci vi l act i on i n equi ty , s ee U ni t ed St at es 3 v. M cG l ory , 202 F. 3d 664, 670 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc ) , i tw oul d be unt i m el y . See M enkar el l v. B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 463 F. 2d 88, 91 ( 3d C i r . 1972) ( hol di ng thatthe for fei tur e of pr opertybythe U ni t ed St at es w i thoutpr opernot i ce i s s ubj ectt o a s i x- y ear li m it ati o n p eriod ); cf. U n it ed S tat es v . O n e “ P iper” A ztec , 3 2 1 F . 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (3d C ir . 2003) ( concl udi ng thatC i vi l A s s etFor fei tur e R eform A ct , w hi ch s et s forth a fi ve y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , “does notappl yr etr oact i vel yt o ci vi l for fei tur e pr ocee di ngs c o m m e n c e d b e f

o re A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 0 .” ). 4 § 1 9 8 3 , is b o rro w e d f

ro m th e f o ru m sta te’ s p e rso n a l in ju rysta tu te. S e e N a p ier v . T h irty o r M o re U n id e n tif

ie d F e d e ra l A g e n ts , E m p lo y e e s o r O f f ic e rs , 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 8 n .3 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . D al ey ’ s caus e of a ct i on acc rued i n T exas , w hi ch empl oy s a tw o- y ear p e rs o n a l in

ju ry st a tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . S e e T e x . C iv . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . §

2 16. 003( a) ; C ooperv. B r ooks hi r e, 70 F. 3d 377, 380 n. 20 ( 5th C i r . 1995) . A l though the st atute of l i m i t at i on s i s an affirm at i ve d efen se, a dis tri ctcou rtm aysua spon t e dis m i ss a compl ai ntunder§ 1915( e) w her e the def ens e i s obvi ous fr om the compl ai ntand no devel opm entof the fa ctual r ecor d i s r equi r ed. See, e. g. , Fogl e v. Pi er s on, 435 F. 3d 1252, 1 2 5 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In th is c a se , D a ley i s c o n tes tin g th e v a lid ityo f th e o rig in a l se izu re o f

h is p ro p e rty i n 1991. I ti s ther efor e appa r entfr om the fa ce of D al ey ’ s compl ai ntthatthe tw o- y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed w el l befor e he f i l ed the pr es entact i on i n 2009. W e agr ee 3 th a t an ya m e n d m e n t to D a ley’s c o m p lain t w o u ld b e f u til e . S e e G ra y so n v . M a yv iew S tate H o s p ., 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( n o tin g th a t a m e n d m e n t “ m u s t b e p e rm itte d . . .D al ey ’ s M ot i ons forT r ans cr i pt s and hi s “M ot i on i n G ener al , A ppl i cat i on forR el i ef” 4 ar e deni ed. 5 unl es s i tw oul d be i nequi t abl e orfut i l e”) . B eca us e D al ey ’ s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. 4