1On page two of the original Complaint (Doc. No. 11) it would appear that a prior lawsuit

had been filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia to Docket No. 0584 in December

Term which was dismissed on January 20, 2005 as time barred.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAHEEM BROWN : CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

:

WILLIAM FARRELL, et al. : NO. 05-881

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr. J. JANUARY 10, 2007

On February 28, 2005, Raheem Brown, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a Complaint

against William Farrell, a police officer and also against John Doe No. 1 and No. 2. Generally,

the Complaint attempts to set forth a civil rights action alleging that Plaintiff was kidnapped and

assaulted by the police.

1

 

With the Complaint was a request to proceed in forma pauperis. After a number of

false starts with respect to financial disclosures, leave to file in forma pauperis was granted on

June 3, 2005. 

On October 3, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On June 24, 2006, the

United States Marshal returned the summons indicating it could not be served without Officer

Farrell’s badge number. 

On March 14, 2006, we issued an Order to Plaintiff to supply the Court with a

badge number for Defendant William Farrell within twenty days.

On April 7, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Complaint assigning names

Case 2:05-cv-00881-RK Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 5
2

and badge numbers to Doe’s No. 1 and No. 2. Attached to this motion was an arrest report for

the incident which is the subject of the current Complaint. The incident report also contains the

badge number of Officer Farrell.

The original Complaint alleged that the events that formed the basis of this action

took place on October 13, 2000. The Amended Complaints allege that the events took place on

October 12, 2000. The police report attached to the motion to amend also indicates that the

incident took place October 12, 2000.

We treat the original Complaint as having been filed on February 28, 2005, the

date when the application to proceed in forma pauperis was originally filed by the Plaintiff. That

would be four years and four months after the alleged incident.

We noticed this problem originally, but our view at that time was to have the

Complaint served and wait for the defense to raise the obvious statute of limitations problem. We

now believe that the best course would have been to dismiss this suit as legally frivolous based on

the fact that the face of the Complaint clearly establishes the defense of statute of limitations. 

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

With the exception of 47 U.S.C. § 1986, the Federal Civil Rights Laws do not

contain a specific statute of limitations for § 1983 actions. Thus, Federal Courts must look to the

statute of limitations governing analogous state causes of action. A § 1983 action is most

analogous to a tort action for damages for personal injuries. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276

105 S.Ct. 1938, 1947 (1985). Pennsylvania has a two year limitations period for personal injury

actions. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 5524 (supp. 1995). 

In the case of Johnstone v. United States, 980 F.Supp. 148, the Court said:

Case 2:05-cv-00881-RK Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 5
3

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which Congress

passed in 1996, has amended the in forma pauperis statute

in ways relevant to the decision in this case. These amendments

have expanded the grounds upon which a trial court may dismiss

a complaint sua sponte, even before the summons issues.

Formerly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) allowed a court to dismiss a 

complaint only if it found that the allegation of poverty was 

untrue or if it was “satisfied that the action is frivolous or

malicious.” As the Supreme Court held in Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989), the

“frivolous” standard does not draw all actions dismissible

upon Rule 12(b)(6) grounds within its ambit. As amended

in 1996, however, § 1915 directs the court to dismiss a 

case at any time if it appears that the action “(i) is frivolous

or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing we find that a two year statute of limitations applies to

this case. According to the face of the Complaint the conduct that formed the basis of this claim

took place on October 13, 2000, four years and four months before the action was filed on

February 28, 2005. The action is barred by the statute of limitations. Under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act we have the authority to dismiss this complaint. We therefore enter the following

Orders. 

Case 2:05-cv-00881-RK Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAHEEM BROWN : CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

:

WILLIAM FARRELL, et al. : NO. 05-881

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2007, Raheem Brown’s Motion to File an

Amended Complaint (second Motion to File Amended Complaint) (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. 

BY THE COURT:

 

/s/ Robert F. Kelly 

ROBERT F. KELLY

SENIOR JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00881-RK Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 4 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RAHEEM BROWN : CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

:

WILLIAM FARRELL, et al. : NO. 05-881

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2007, the within Complaint is hereby

dismissed as legally frivolous. There are no probable grounds for appeal.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Robert F. Kelly 

ROBERT F. KELLY

SENIOR JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00881-RK Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 5 of 5