2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-16-2002

Laraia v. Beaver

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-2973

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision 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 2002 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

"Laraia v. Beaver" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 398.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/398
 

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 

 No: 01-2973 

 _______________ 

 

 LOUIS A. LARAIA, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 COUNTY OF BEAVER 

 ______________________ 

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civil Action No. 99-cv-02032) 

 District Judge: Donetta W. Ambrose 

 _________________________ 

 

 Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 on May 2, 2002 

 

 Before: ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges 

 POLLAK*, District Judge 

 

 (Opinion filed : July 15, 2002 ) 

 

 * Honorable Louis H. Pollak, District Court Judge for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation 

 

 

 O P I N I O N 

 

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge: 

 Plaintiff-Appellant Louis LaRaia appeals from an order dismissing his lawsuit. 

We will affirm. 

 Although Mr. LaRaia is represented by counsel, his filings with the District Court 

and with this Court are so disorganized they are nearly incoherent. As best as we can 

tell, however, LaRaia felt Beaver County, Pennsylvania violated his constitutional rights 

by prosecuting him for Cruelty to Animals in violation of Pennsylvania [Common 

Statute] 5511(a) for killing a hunting dog that wandered onto his property. LaRaia was 

convicted of killing the dog in 1987. By 1995, he had exhausted his appeals. See 

Commonwealth v. LaRaia, 668 A.2d 1126 (Pa. 1995)(denying a Petitions for Allowance 

of Appeal); LaRaia v. Pennsylvania, 506 U.S. 815 (1992)(denying certiorari) 

 After his final appeal was denied, LaRaia waited more than four years to file the 

instant action. On December 15, 1999, he sued Beaver County, Pennslyvania, pursuant 
to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986. He also filed suit directly under the Equal 

Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The District Court dismissed all his claims: 

his statutory claims because they were barred by the statute of limitations, and his equal 

protection claim because he failed to allege that he was selectively treated due to 

improper., discriminatory motive. LaRaia has now appealed to this court. 

 He raises three issues on appeal, only two of which we must address. LaRaia first 

contends that the statute of limitations has not run on his statutory claims. In 

Pennsylvania, claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 are subject to a two 

year statute of limitations. See Sameric Corp. of Delaware, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 

142 F.3d 582, 59 (3rd Cir. 1998); Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74, 79 

(3rd Cir. 1989). Claims asserted under 1986 are subject to a one year statute of 

limitations. See Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police Dept., 892 F.2d 23, 25 (3rd Cir. 1989). 

The conduct underlying each of these claims occurred, at the latest, in 1995, when 

LaRaia’s final appeal was denied. That means he filed suit at least two years after the 

statute of limitation expired on his 1983 and 1985 claims, and at least three years after 

the statute of limitation expired on his 1986 claims. As a result we will affirm the 

District Court’s dismissal of his statutory claims. 

 LaRaia also contends that the District Court erred by dismissing his equal 

protection claim. The reasons he gives for this contention are indecipherable. Our best 

understanding of his contention is that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss 

the equal protection claim in his Amended Complaint because it dismissed that claim for 

different reasons when he raised it in his First Complaint. We find this argument devoid 

of merit. In addition, the failure to allege that a classification is irrational is a proper 

ground for dismissal. See Olech v. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (2000). We 

will therefore affirm the dismissal of LaRaia’s equal protection claim. 

 LaRaia’s third assignment of error addresses the merits of his case, but, because 

we will affirm the dismissal of all his claims on other grounds, we need not address it. 

We will therefore affirm the District Court. 

_____________________________ 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Opinion. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judg