2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-12-2011 

# K or a n C ain v . C it y of P hi l a P olice D ept

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-2961

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Kor a n C ain v

. C it y of P hi l a P o l ic e D e pt " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 371. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/3711



### BLD
- 280 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 2 9 61

___________ KORAN CAIN ,

Appellant

v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT;

P/O LECIA, #9875; P/O YOUNG, #7442

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 11

- cv - 0 4490 ) District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

____________________________________ Submit ted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

September 8, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed October 12, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM

. On July 15, 2011, Koran Cain filed a pro se civil rights complaint in the District2



### Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania na ming the City of Philadelphia Police Department and two of its officers , Lecia and Young, as defendants. According to t he complaint, Cain seeks relief for an alleged unlawful arrest that occurred twenty years ago, on August 16, 1991. Cain alleges that he was arrested and charged with possession of two grams of cocaine, but that Officer Lecia planted the drugs, Officer Young falsified public records, and both officers lied under oath. The District Court granted Cain leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that any constitutional claims arising out of Cain’s 1991 arrest are now time

- barred under the two

- year statute of
limitations for actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cain timely filed this appeal.
We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise pl enary review

. See Allah v. Seiverling , 22 9 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). “The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim arising in Pennsylvania is two years.” Kach v. Hose , 58 9 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). A cause of action under § 1983 “accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upo n which [his] action is based.” Sameric Corp. of Del. v.
Phila. , 1 42 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998). Cain’s complaint makes it clear that any cause
of action arising out of his 1991 arrest accrued mo re than two years prior to his filing of
this suit in 2011

. See Wallace v. Kato , 549 U.S. 384, 391

- 92 ( 2007) (holding that “ the

statu te of limitations on petitioner’ s § 1983 claim commenced to run when he appeared before the examining magistrat e and was bo und over for trial. Since more than two years elapsed between that date and the filing of this suit

... the action was time ba rred.”).3



### Where a statute of limitations defense is apparent on the face of the complaint, a
district court may dismiss the suit sua sponte under § 1915(e). See, e.g. , Fogle v. Pierson , 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006). The District Court properly followed that course here. Because Cain’s appeal presents no substantial question , we will summarily affirm the District Court’s j ud gment. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4

.