2008 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 9-17-2008 

# B e rn ard B rown v

. A.D . T oll a ckson 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 . 08-2128

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_2008

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 2008 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 " Be rn ard B rown v

. A.D . T o ll a cks on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 525. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/525D L D - 2 6 8 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. 08- 2128

___________ BE RN AR D B RO WN, A ppel l ant

v. A. D. T OL L AC KS ON

____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- 1094) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

____________________________________ 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 ugus t7, 2008 Bef or e : BA RR Y , CH A G A RE S A N D G RE EN BE RG , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember17, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM B ernar d B r ow n, a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the2

defe ndant , A . D . T ol l acks on, a pr i s on offi ci al atFC I - A l l enw ood. O n appea l , T ol l acks on see k s su m m aryaf

firm an ce o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er, an d B row n see k s su m m ary re v e rs a l. B row n, w ho i s i ncarcerat ed at FC I- A l l enw oo d, fi l ed a B i ven s com plai nt agai nst T ol l acks on, al l egi ng thatT ol l acks on had vi ol at ed hi s fede r al ci vi l r i ght s . B r ow n al l eges that , i n 2004, T ol l acks on deni ed hi m acc es s t o the pr i s on s t aff phot ocopi erw hen the i nm at e phot ocopi erw as outof s ervi ce, and thatT ol l acks on di s cour aged Brow n fr om talk in g to th e w a rd e n a b o u t th e iss u e . B ro w n a lleg e s th a t T o llac k so n ’s r e f u sa l to p e rm it h im a c c e s s to th e s ta f

f p h o to c o p ie r c o m p ro m is e d h is le g a l r e p re s e n ta tio n . Br o wn a l s o a l l e g e s th a tTo l l a c k s o n r e f u s e d t o p e r mi tBr o wn ’ s wi f e t o v i s i th i m, pu rport edlyon accou nt of her cr i m i nal hi st ory . B row n asser t s that this exp l anati on w as a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on, as pr i s on offi ci al s atotherfac i l i t i es had pr evi ous l yperm i t t ed Br o wn ’ s wi f

e t o v i s i th i m, d e s p i t e th e i rk n o wl e d g e o f h e rc r i mi n a l h i s t o ry . Br o wn re q u e ste d th e a ss ista n c e o f M r. K o s, h is u n it co u n se lo r, in o b tain in g c lea ra n c e f o r h is w i fe’ s vi s i t s . K os i ndi cat ed thatB r ow n’ s w i fe ha d notfi l l ed outthe appr opr i at e vi s i t or fo rm . B row n all eg es th at his w ife su b m itted a n o ther lett er f rom h er p rob ati o n o ff

icer, perm i t t i ng the vi s i t . T ol l acks on or der ed K os t o forw ar d the l ett ert o hi m . T ol l acks on thw art ed the cl ear ance pr oces s and then al l egedl yt ol d B r ow n thati tw as nothi s faul tthat B r ow n’ s w i fe “ i s a cr i m i nal . ”3

T h e p arti es c ross -m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T o ll ac k so n so u g h t sum m ary j udgm enton the bas i s thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on B r ow n’ s cl ai m s had expi r ed and thatB r ow n had fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . B r ow n r es ponded thatthe sta tu te o f lim itatio n s w ith re sp e c t to h is w if e ’s v isits s h o u ld b e to lled b e c a u se th e f u ll h arm d id n o t acc rue u n ti l 20 0 6 , w h en h is w ife f il ed fo r div o rce . T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ie d B ro w n ’s m o tio n a n d g ra n te d T o lla c k s o n ’s m o tio n . W e a g ree that B row n ’s claim s are ti m e-b arred . T h e statute o f li m it ati o n s fo r a B i vens cl ai m , as forcl ai m s ar i s i ng under42 U . S. C . § 1983, i s borr ow ed fr om the forum stat e’s p erso n al i n

jurystatu te. S ee K o st v. K o za k iew icz, 1 F . 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 9 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); Ki n g v . On e Un k n o wn F e d . Co rr . Of f i c e r , 2 0 1 F . 3 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( s a me s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o act i ons underB i vens and § 1983) . I n Penns y l vani a, the s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s f

o r p e rs o n a l in

ju ry a c tio n s is 2 y e a rs . 4 2 P a . C .S .A . § 5 5 2 4 . T h e re f o re , B ro w n h a d tw o y e a rs f ro m th e tim e e a c h c la im a c c ru e d to f ile s u it. B r ow n’ s fi r s tcl ai m , r egar di ng T ol l acks on’ s r efus al t o perm i thi m t o us e the s t aff phot ocopi er , acc rued i n 2004. B r ow n does notcont end thathe di d notorcoul d notknow o f th e h a rm a t th e tim e it o c c u rre d . A s B ro w n d id n o t f ile s u it u n til Ja n u a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , h is fi r s tcl ai m i s t i m e- barr ed. A s t o hi s s econd c l ai m , B r ow n cont ends thatT ol l acks on re f u se d to p e rm it h is w if

e to v isit h im in 2 0 0 3 a n d 2 0 0 4 . In h is re sp o n se in o p p o sitio n to su m m a ryju d g m e n t, B ro w n c o n ten d s th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s o n h is s e c o n d c laim s h o u ld b e to lle d b e c a u s e h is c la im d id n o t a c c ru e u n til 2 0 0 6 , w h e n h is w if e d iv o rc e d h im .T he compl ai ntal l eges thatB r ow n w as harm ed i n 2003 and 2004 w hen hi s w i fe w as not

perm i t t ed t o vi s i t . H i s caus e of a ct i on acc rued notatthe t i m e of hi s di vor ce, butw hen vi s i t at i on w as deni ed. T her efor e, B r ow n’ s s econd c l ai m i s al s o t i m e- barr ed. E ven i f w e w er e t o det erm i ne thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons di d notbegi n t o run u n til B ro w n ’s w if

e f iled f o r d iv o rc e in 2 0 0 6 , B ro w n ’s c laim w o u ld still fa il d u e to h is fai l ur e t o exhaus t . Fai l ur e t o exhaus tunderthe PL R A i s an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, and the pl ai nt i ff ha s no obl i gat i on t o pl ead e xhaus t i on i n the compl ai nt . R ayv. K ert es , 285 F. 3d 287, 297- 98 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . H ow ever , exhaus t i on m aybe pr oper l yr ai s ed on a mot i on for su m m aryjud g m en t. W h ere , as h ere , the d ef en d an t sub m it s ev iden ce at th e su m m ary j ud gm ent s t age indi cat i ng that the p l ai nti ff fail ed to exh austhis adm i nis trat i ve rem edies , D ef’ t . M ot . forSum m . J . , E x. 1, the pl ai nt i ff mustcome forw ar d w i th r ebutt al evi dence to a v o id su m m a ryju d g m e n t. B ro w n c o n c e d e s in h is o p p o sitio n b rie f th a t h e f a iled to exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r es pectt o hi s s econd c l ai m , buthe cont ends that exhaus t i on w oul d have be en fut i l e. Fut i l i tydoes notexcus e the PL R A ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ement . N yhui s v. R eno, 204 F. 3d 65, 71 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T her efor e, the D i s tr i ct C o u rtc o u ld n o t h a v e re a c h e d th e m e ri ts o f B ro w n ’s s e c o n d c la im , in a n ye v e n t. A s thi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l gr antappel l ee’ s m ot i on for s um m aryaff

i r m ance . 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i ons for s u m m a ry re v e rs a l a n d f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l a re d e n ie d .