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 Thir d C ir c uit 3-24-2010 

# Angel S ant o s v

. C l yde G ainey P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4578

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 b y 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 mor e 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 " An g el S ant os v

. C lyde G ainey " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1641. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1641C L D - 139 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- 4578 A N G EL L . SA N TO S,

A ppel l ant v . CLY DE G AI NEY O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 03436) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Patr i ce B. T ucker

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t 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 M ar ch 4, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 24, 2010)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM O n Ju ly3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , ap p e llan t A n g e l L . S a n to s, a f e d e ra l p riso n e r, f

iled a m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ri s , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 , a n d a c iv il r ig h ts c o m p la in t, 4 2 U .S .C . §T he mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s w as gr ant ed. 1 2 1983, i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. Sant os 1 al l eged i n hi s compl ai ntthatW ar den C l y de G ai neyof the C urr an Fr om hol d C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty , w her e he then w as det ai ned, vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l r i ght s w hen, as a r es ul tof i mp r o p e rs e c u r i tya tth e p r i s o n , c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s f a i l e d t o p r o t e c th i m f

r o m two as s aul t s byot heri nm at es . Sant os al l eged i n hi s compl ai ntthatthe as s aul t s occurr ed on M ay26, 2007 and J une 29, 2007. See C om pl ai nt , at¶ V , pp. 4- 4B . Sant os s oughtm oney damages i n t he amountof $30, 000. 00. T he compl ai ntw as dat ed J une 23, 2009, as w as the i n form a paupe r i s appl i cat i on. W a rd e n G a in e ym o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) on the gr ound t hati tw as t i m e- barr ed underthe appl i cabl e tw o- y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5524. Sant os ’ s caus es of ac t i on acc rued o n th e d a tes o f

th e a ss a u lts, an d h e d id n o t f ile h is c o m p lain t u n til Ju ly3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , a m o n th bey ond the dea dl i ne forthe J une as s aul tand tw o m onths bey ond the dea dl i ne forthe M ay as s aul t . M or eover , he di d notal l ege a nyfac t s w hi ch w oul d j us t i fyt ol l i ng the l i m i t at i on p e ri o d . S antos fi l ed a respon se i n o pp osi t i on t o the m oti on t o d i sm i ss, and he als o r eques t ed thathe be a l l ow ed t o amend hi s compl ai nt . I n pert i nentpart , Sant os as s ert ed thatthe fi l i ng of hi s compl ai ntw as “hi nder ed” bytw o pr oces s es bey ond hi s contr ol : t he need pur s uantt o hi s i n form a paupe r i s appl i cat i on t o have a pr i s on offi ci al cert i fythe3

amount of m oneyi n hi s i nm at e ac countatFC I - A l l enw ood, and the nee d t o have a c o u n s e lo r a p p ro v e p o s ta g e f o r a n in d ig e n t in m a te . S e e D o c k e t E n tr yN o . 1 2 , a t p . 2 . W i thoutaddr es s i ng Sant os ’ s t ol l i ng ar gum ent , the D i s tr i ctC our t , i n an or derent er ed on N o v e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 9 , g ra n ted th e W a rd e n ’s m o tio n to d ism iss a n d d e n ied th e re q u e st to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t. Sant os has appea l ed. O urC l erk gr ant ed hi m l eave t o appea l i n form a paupe r i s and a d v is e d h im th a t h is a p p e a l w a s s u b je c t to s u m m a ry d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o rs u mm a r ya f f i r ma n c e u n d e rT h i r d Ci r . L AR 2 7 . 4 a n d I . O. P . 1 0 . 6 . He w as i nvi t ed t o s ubm i tar gum enti n w r i t i ng, and he ha s done s o. W e w i l l sum m ari l yaffirm un der T hir d C i rcui tL A R 27 . 4 an d I. O . P . 10 . 6, becau se i tcl ear l yappea r s thatno s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed bythi s appea l . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. “[W ]hen rul i ng on a def end ant’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , a j udge mustacc eptas true al l of the fa ctual al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the compl ai nt . ” Eri cks on v. Par dus , 551 U . S. 89, 94 (2 0 0 7 ) ( c itin g B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . v . T w o m b ly, 5 5 0 U .S . 5 4 4 , 5 5 5 -5 6 (2 0 0 7 )) . W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f a m o tio n to d ism iss . S e e C ity o f P ittsbu rgh v . W est P en n P o w er C o . , 1 4 7 F . 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 2 n . 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned thatSant os ’ s caus es of ac t i on acc rued on th e a c tu a l d a tes o f

th e a lleg e d a ss a u lts, an d p ro p e rlya p p lied th e g o v e rn in g law in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e a c tio n s w e re b a rre d b yth e tw o -y e a r sta tu tes o f lim itatio n a p p lica b le to4

t or t s i n Penns y l vani a. See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5524( 2) , ( 7) . See al s o W i l s on v. Ga r c i a , 4 7 1 U. S . 2 6 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( s t a t e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n a p p l i e s t o a c t i o n s u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 ). O rdin aril yw e w o u ld rem an d in o rde r fo r th e D istri ct C o u rtto ad d ress S an tos’s t oll i ng argum ent i n the fi rs ti nst ance, but , becau se i tplai nlyl acks m eri t , w e w i l l no tdo so her e. I ns ofaras Sant os w i thoutques t i on w as aw ar e of hi s al l eged i nj uryon eac h o c c a s i o n , a n d wa s u n d e rn o d i s a b i l i tyo f a n yk i n d a ta n yt i me d u r i n g th e r e l e v a n tt i me per i od, he i s notai ded i n avoi di ng the t i m e- barbyPenns y l vani a’ s di s coveryrul e, s ee Fi ne v. C hecc i o, 870 A . 2d 850, 859 ( Pa. 2005) ( di s coveryrul e pr ovi des thatw her e exi s t ence o f in ju ryis n o t k n o w n , li m itatio n p e rio d d o e s n o t b e g in to ru n u n til in ju re d p a rty di s cover s orr eas onabl ys houl d di s coverthathe has been i nj ur ed and thathi s i nj uryhas b ee n ca u sed b yan o ther p arty ’s co n d u ct). Feder al equi t abl e t ol l i ng, w hi ch w e as s um e ar guendo mi ghtappl y , s ee K ach v. H os e, 589 F. 3d 626, 639 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( “W her e s t at e t ol l i ng pr i nci pl es contr adi ctfede r al l aw or poli cy , fede ral t oll i ng pri ncipl es m ayapp l yi n cert ai n li m i t ed cir cum st ances. ”), al so d o es n o t help S an tos a v o id the ti m e-b ar. E q u it ab le t o ll ing is ap p rop ri ate w h ere : ( 1 ) a defe ndantact i vel ym i s l eads a pl ai nt i ff w i th r es pectt o hi s caus e of a ct i on; ( 2) the pl ai nt i ff h as b ee n p rev en ted f

rom asse rt ing h is cl aim as a resu lto f o ther e x tr ao rdin ary c irc u m sta n c e s; o r (3 ) th e p lain tiff a ss e rts h is c laim s in a tim e lym a n n e r b u t h a s d o n e so in the w ron g fo rum . S ee L ak e v . A rno ld, 23 2 F . 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 7 0 n . 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B oth Sant os ’ s compl ai ntand hi s i n form a paupe r i s appl i cat i on w er e dat ed J une 23,T he ac countcert i fi cat i on w as s i gned byan FC I - A l l enw ood offi ci al on J une 29, 2009. 2 5 2007, w hi ch r ai s es the ques t i on w hethert ol l i ng w oul d have s aved the ca us e of a ct i on r el at i ng t o t he J une 29, 2007 as s aul t . Sant os cont ends thatthe s i x day s he l eftforpr i s on a u th o r i t i e s t o c o mp l e t e th e p a p e r wo r k a s s o c i a t e d wi th a n i n d i g e n tp r i s o n e r ’ s i n f o r ma p a u p e ris a p p lica tio n – in h is c a se , ce rtifyi n g th a t h e h a d $ 0 .0 6 in h is p riso n a c c o u n t, author i zi ng fr ee pos t age, and mai l i ng the compl ai nti n t i m e fori tt o r eac h the fe der al d istric t co u rt b yth e Ju n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 d e a d lin e – w a s s u f f icie n t. O n lyif

th e p lain tiff

is 2 p re v e n te d f

ro m a s s e rt in g h is c la im s in s o m e e x tr a o rd in a ry w a yis to llin g p e rm itte d . Sant os di d notexpl ai n w hyhe w ai t ed al m os ttw o y ear s befor e i ni t i at i ng the pr oces s att he pr i s on forcompl et i ng the i n form a paupe r i s appl i cat i on, and w e ther efor e conc l ude that h e d id n o t e x e rc is e th e re q u ir e d d ilig e n c e in p u rs u in g h is c la im . T h ere m igh t be s o m e c ir cu m stan ce s in w h ich th e p o li cies u n d erly ing C o n g ress’s i nt entt o m ake the fe der al court s avai l abl e t o i ndi gentpr i s oner s w oul d w arr antt ol l i ng wh e r e a p r i s o n e rt a k e s a l l th e n e c e s s a rys t e p s i n a t i me l yma n n e rt o p e r f e c th i s i n f

o r ma pauper i s appl i cat i on, and thr ough unr eas onabl e del aybypr i s on author i t i es i n compl et i ng th e p ri s o n ’s p a rt o f

th e p a p e rw o rk , th e p ri s o n e r’ s c iv il r ig h ts c o m p la in t is n o t tim e ly f ile d . B u t se e K a c h , 5 8 9 F .3 d a t 6 4 3 (q u e stio n in g w h e th e r P e n n sy lv a n ia to lli n g law c o n f licts w ith re m e d ial p u rp o se s o f § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s). B u t co u rts s h o u ld e x ten d f e d e ra l to lli n g o n ly sp aring ly , see id. at6 4 5 (cit ing Irw in v . D ep ' t of V eteran s A ff

airs, 4 9 8 U . S . 8 9 , 9 6 (19 9 0 ), and the ci r cumst ance s of Sant os ’ s havi ng w ai t ed al m os ttw o y ear s t o compl et e hi s partof6

the i n form a paupe r i s appl i cat i on does notper s uade us thatfede r al equi t abl e t ol l i ng s h o u l d a p p l yt o h i m. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt g ran ti n g the d ef

en d an t’ s m o ti o n an d d ism issi n g the c o m p lai n t un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ).