2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-18-2011

John Humphries v. Mary Houghton

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1784

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

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 2011 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

"John Humphries v. Mary Houghton" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 662.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/662
GLD-259 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1784

___________

JOHN M. HUMPHRIES,

 Appellant

v.

MARY M. HOUGHTON, IN INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; 

MARIE VEON, IN INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; 

KIMBERLY R. ROGERS, IN INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; 

JAMES EMBREE, IN INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; 

MARK LOPE, IN INDIVIDUAL AND PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY; 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, THE AGENCY; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, THE AGENCY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-01514)

District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti

____________________________________

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

August 11, 2011

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES AND COWEN, Circuit Judges

 (Opinion filed: August 18, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM.

On November 8, 2010, John M. Humphries, a prisoner, filed a pro se, in forma

pauperis complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking 

damages and other relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Humphries asserted ten 

claims, including false arrest and malicious prosecution, based on a lengthy narrative of 

events dating back to his September 20, 2006, arrest on drug charges in Venango County, 

Pennsylvania. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the complaint sua sponte 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, citing four grounds: (1) any 

claim based on acts that predate November 8, 2008, is barred under the two-year statute 

of limitations; (2) insofar as Humphries seeks relief due to allegedly perjured testimony 

and false evidence in connection with his 2009 federal conviction, his claims are not 

cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); (3) the prosecutor defendants 

(Houghton, Lope, and Veon) are entitled to absolute immunity; and (4) the doctrine of 

claim preclusion bars claims that Humphries raised, or could have raised, in an earlier 

suit.1 The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the 

complaint for failure to state a claim. Humphries timely filed this appeal. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Humphries has been 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 

an action or appeal must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim 

on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. We exercise plenary review over the sua sponte dismissal of 

 

1

See Humphries v. Venango County Dist. Att’y, W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 08-cv-00335. 
3

Humphries’ complaint. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). 

After a review of the record, we discern no error in the District Court’s analysis. 

“The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim arising in Pennsylvania is two years.” Kach 

v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009).2 A cause of action “accrues when the plaintiff 

knew or should have known of the injury upon which [his] action is based.” Sameric 

Corp. of Del. v. Phila., 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998); see Dique v. N.J. State Police, 

603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). According to the complaint, the alleged constitutional 

violations that Humphries incurred at the hands of state officials occurred between 

September 20, 2006, and April 17, 2008, when charges brought against him in Butler 

County were dismissed. See Compl. at ¶ 86. Humphries filed this suit on November 8, 

2010. We agree with the District Court that Humphries is barred from asserting claims 

based on acts allegedly committed by defendants prior to November 8, 2008.3 As a 

 

2

Insofar as Humphries seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, the same two-year 

limitations period bars his claims. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 368 (3d Cir. 

2000). Further, Humphries fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

under § 1985 because he does not allege facts giving rise to a plausible claim that a 

racial or other class-based invidious discriminatory animus lay behind defendants’ 

alleged actions. See Brown v. Philip Morris, Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 805 (3d Cir. 2001). 

3 Humphries argues that the limitations period should be tolled because he filed a 

complaint against certain defendants with the Office of Professional Responsibility in 

February 2010 and did not receive a response until September 2010. Generally, state 

law governs the question of whether to afford tolling of the limitations period in a 

civil rights suit. See Dique, 603 F.3d at 185; Kach, 589 F.3d at 639. We find no 

authority for the proposition that tolling is available under Pennsylvania law for the 

time in which Humphries pursued an administrative complaint that was not a 

prerequisite to suit under § 1983. Cf. Ammlung v. City of Chester, 494 F.2d 811, 816 

(3d Cir. 1974) (explaining that “[t]he running of a Pennsylvania statute of limitations 

against a federal cause of action is not tolled under Pennsylvania concepts of tolling 

by the commencement of a similar suit in state court”). We have considered the 
4

result, Humphries is precluded from asserting the claims in his complaint that arise out of 

his 2006 prosecution in Venango County; the alleged termination of his parental rights; 

the events surrounding the arrest of his girlfriend, Dena Papania; his arrest in November 

2007; and the dismissed charges brought against him in Butler County. 

As to the remainder of the complaint, which appears to center upon Humphries’ 

arrest, indictment, and conviction on federal criminal charges, the District Court properly 

dismissed the claims for relief.4 Defendant Houghton, a federal prosecutor, is entitled to 

absolute immunity for actions performed within her authority. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 

424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (“[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, 

the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983.”).

5

 Humphries 

does not assert a plausible claim that Houghton acted outside the scope of her duties in 

bringing the charges against him. 

Humphries’ claims that defendants used perjury and false evidence to secure his 

federal conviction are not cognizable under Heck’s favorable termination rule. As noted, 

 

additional tolling arguments presented in Humphries’ “Brief,” but conclude that those 

arguments do not provide a basis to toll the limitations period. 

4 Humphries was indicted in federal court on November 19, 2008, within two years 

prior to filing this suit. He entered a plea of guilty to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846 and was sentenced on March 20, 2009, to twenty-one months of imprisonment 

followed by three years of supervised release. See W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 08-cr-00402.

 

5 While Humphries’ suit against Houghton, a federal official, is properly construed as 

an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather 

than § 1983, the same result obtains. “[C]ourts have generally relied upon the 

principles developed in the case law applying section 1983 to establish the outer 

perimeters of a Bivens claim against federal officials.” Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 

1402, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991).
5

Humphries entered a plea of guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. § 846, and there is no evidence 

that any court has called the conviction into question. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see

also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (explaining that Heck’s favorable 

termination rule applies “no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit . . . if success in that 

action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration”).

Finally, Humphries appears to challenge the factual basis for the initial federal 

criminal complaint filed against him, arguing that the absence of probable cause supports 

a claim for malicious prosecution. In particular, he complains that defendant Rogers, an 

Investigator for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, must have lacked probable cause for 

the “Schedule II” controlled substance allegation that was included in the original 

criminal complaint given that only a “Schedule III” controlled substance formed the 

factual basis for the superseding indictment to which Humphries pleaded guilty. This 

malicious prosecution claim, however, is barred by the Heck rule in light of Humphries’ 

conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846 -- the same offense that he was charged with in the 

original criminal complaint. See Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 194 (3d Cir. 2009)

(en banc) (explaining that “courts need not reach the probable cause element unless they 

first make a finding of favorable termination after examining whether the proceeding as a 

whole indicates the innocence of the accused with respect to the conduct underlying all of 

the charges”). Furthermore, if not premature under the Heck rule, this claim is barred by 

the statute of limitations. As discussed, Humphries cannot assert claims that pre-date 
6

November 8, 2008.

6

 The original federal complaint, accompanied by defendant Rogers’ 

supporting affidavit, was filed on April 15, 2008, and Humphries does not suggest a later 

accrual date for any claim based on the facts asserted in Rogers’ affidavit. Humphries’ 

malicious prosecution claim, therefore, would be untimely. 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that this appeal lacks any arguable legal 

merit, and therefore we will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

Humphries’ motions to consider an audio recording and for leave to file an extended brief 

are denied.

 

6 Humphries’ claims under Bivens are also subject to a two-year limitations period. 

See Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Fed. Agents, 855 F.2d 1080, 1087 & n.3

(3d Cir. 1988).