2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-22-2015

Yuwsha Alwan v. Pamela Dembe

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This May 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 2015 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

"Yuwsha Alwan v. Pamela Dembe" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 521.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/521
BLD-199 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4030

___________

YUWSHA ALWAN,

 Appellant 

v.

PAMELA P. DEMBE; LILLIAN H. RANSOM; 

PATRICK F. DUGAN; BARBARA A. MCDERMOTT; 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA; 

RICHARD SAX; ROBERT M. GAMBURG; 

NORMAN SCOTT; JOHN HARKINS; JOSEPH MCDERMOTT; 

SHARIF STREET; MICHAEL GIFFORD; KEVIN LONG; 

CHARLES RAMSEY; HUGH BURNS; JOSEPH C. SANTAGUIDA; 

DOMINIC J. MANGONI

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-cv-04001)

District Judge: Honorable C. Darnell Jones, II

____________________________________

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

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 14, 2015

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 22, 2015)
2

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Yuwsha Alwan, an inmate, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit. We 

will affirm.

Alwan filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 alleging 

that he was “falsely accused and convicted of murder, conspiracy and robbery” because: 

(1) he never received a copy of the arrest warrant, the search warrant, the probable cause 

affidavit, and “any documents related to the extradition agreement”; (2) Robert Gray, 

who had confessed to the crime, had recanted any statements implicating Alwan, and had 

testified at Alwan’s preliminary hearing and his trial that Alwan was actually innocent; 

(3) a Judge improperly denied Alwan’s requests for discovery and delayed his trial date; 

(4) Alwan wrote a letter to another Judge, complaining of these purported errors; and (5) 

despite Gray’s testimony exonerating him, Alwan was “falsely” convicted. Alwan’s 

complaint named as defendants several Judges of the Philadelphia Court of Common 

Pleas, prosecutors in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, police officers, and 

criminal defense attorneys—all of whom, Alwan alleged, “conspired against his rights” 

by “depriv[ing] him of the right to a fair public trial by an impartial jury.” Alwan sought 

an order requiring the defendants to “identify, produce and certify . . . any and all 
3

documents that either incriminate and/or exonerate [him]” as well as a declaration that his 

rights were violated. In addition, Alwan requested that the District Court refer his case to 

the United States Attorney for the initiation of criminal charges. 

The District Court dismissed Alwan’s complaint pursuant to its screening 

obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The District Court concluded that: (1) though 

Alwan’s complaint mentioned 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, those statutes have no 

application to his claims; (2) Alwan’s claims—that he was maliciously prosecuted, 

falsely convicted on fabricated evidence, denied a fair and speedy trial, and denied access 

to exculpatory material—are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), 

see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 

action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or 

equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to 

conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”); (3) to the extent Alwan 

alleged claims of false arrest or false imprisonment, and to the extent those claims were 

not barred by Heck, see Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 395 n.5 (2007), they are timebarred by the statute of limitations, see id. at 389, and the one-year statute of limitations 

in § 1986; and (4) amendment of his complaint would be futile, see Grayson v. Mayview 

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
4

Alwan appealed. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 

F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial 

questions. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

We conclude that there is no arguable basis to challenge the District Court’s 

decision to dismiss Alwan’s complaint, for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s 

memorandum. We also agree that amendment of his complaint would be futile. 

Grayson, 293 F.3d at 108. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the 

District Court.