2009 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 10-13-2009 

# D a vid C a s sel l v

. C ity of P hi l a delphi a 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 ocke t N o . 09-2537

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" D a vid C as s e l l v

. C ity of P hi l a de lp hi a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 453. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/453CL D- 0 0 3 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- 2537

___________ 

### D A V ID B . C A S S E L L , Appe l l ant v. C IT Y O F P H IL A D E L P H IA ; S O C IA L S E C U R IT Y A D M IN IS T RA T IO N ; M E R C Y C A T H O L IC H O S P IT A L ; H A HN E M ANN H O S P IT A L ;

HOMELESS ADVOCACY PROJ ECT

____________________________________ OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e E asternD istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. Ci v. No. 08- c v- 05460) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n o rab le S tew art D alzell

____________________________________ Subm i tt e d for

Pos s i bl e Summ ary

Ac t i on P ursu an t to T h irdC ircu it L A R 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Oc t obe r 1, 2009 Befo re : BARRY , FISHE R andCO WEN, Circ uit Jud ges

( Opi ni on fi l e d Oc t obe r

13, 2009)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ PE R C URI AM O n N ovember 19, 2008, D avi d B . C as s el l comm ence d t hi s act i on i n t he U ni t ed S tate s D istric t 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 b yf

ili n g a p ro se c o m p lain t,

### 2

f o l l o we d s o o n t h e r e a f

t e rb ya n a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t , i n wh i c h h e a s s e r t e d g e n e r a l c l a i ms t hatt he named defe ndant s – t he C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on ( “SSA ”) , M er cyC at hol i c H os pi t al , H ahnemann H os pi t al , and the H om el es s A dvocac y P rojec t – h a d v io late d h is rig h ts. C a ss e ll cla im e d , fo r e x a m p le, th a t th e P h ilad e lp h ia p o lice h a d ill e g a llya rre ste d , b e a ten , an d im p riso n e d h im w ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss o f law , b u t, a s t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r to b s e r v e d , Ca s s e l l p r o v i d e d “ n o o t h e rf a c t s ” t o s u p p o r tt h i s c l a i m. O n Febr uar y10, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed C as s el l t o fi l e a s econd a m ended compl ai nts et t i ng for t h bas i c s uppor t i ng fac t s , i ncl udi ng dat es , t he ci r cumst ance s of t he a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t s , a n d o t h e rr e a d i l ya v a i l a b l e i n f o r ma t i o n . Wi t h r e s p e c tt o t h e S S A, w hi ch C as s el l al l eged ha d “mi s di agnos [ed] [hi m ] as m ent al l yr et ar ded” a nd di s cont i nued h i s b e n e f i t s , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d t h e i n f o r ma p a u p e r i s c o mp l a i n tu n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 91 5(e) (2) (B )( i i ) because C assel l had fai l ed to exh aust adm i nis t rat i ve rem edies . C as s el l fi l ed l et t err es pons es on A pr i l 6 and 15, 2009, w hi ch w er e docke t ed as an amended compl ai nt( t echni cal l yt he s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt ) and a s uppl ement t her et o. H ahnemann H os pi t al ( i dent i fy i ng i t s el f as T enetH eal t hSy s t em H ahnemann, L L C ) m oved t o di s m i s s , ar gui ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on and t hatC as s el l fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. O n M ay7, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed C as s el l ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tt he C i t yof Phi l adel phi a forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , hol di ng t hatt he t w o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons h a d e x p ire d f

o r c laim s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 b e c a u se C a ss e ll’s a lleg e d in c id e n ts w ith

### O ur rev iewis p len ary rev iewo v er a d ism issal f o r f ailure to co m

p ly w itha statute 1 

### of l i m i t at i ons , I n r e Me r c k & Co. , I nc . Se c . De r i vat i ve & ERI SA Li t i g. , 543 F. 3d 150, 160 ( 3d Ci r . 2008) , a s we l la s ove r the que s t i on of s ubje c t - m att e r jur i s di c t i on, Li ght foot v. Un it ed Stat es , 564 F.3d62 5, 62 6 (3dCir. 20 09 ). 3 t he Phi l adel phi a pol i ce ha d occurr ed betw een J ul y15, 2003, and J anuary1, 2006, and C as s el l fi l ed hi s or i gi nal compl ai nti n N ovember 2008. N ot i ng t hatC as s el l ’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s w ere br ou gh tagainstpri vate ent i t i es, and t hat anycl ai m s he m i gh thav e against t hem m us tar i s e unders t at e l aw , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed t hos e cl ai m s forl ack of fede r al - ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on, and al s o concl uded t hati tl acke d di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on. C a s s e ll tim e ly f

ile d th is a p p e a l. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A fter a c are fu l r ev iew o f th e re co rd, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm in ac co rda n ce w ith T h ir d C i r cui tI nt er nal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e C hapt er10. 6. 1 

### A s th e D istrict C o urt exp lain ed , C assell’s § 1 9 8 3 claim s ag ain st th e P h ilad elp h ia po li cear e gov er

ned b y Penn sylvania ’s two-year s tatute of li m it at ions fo r per sonal i nj ury ac ti on s. See Sam eric Co rp. v. Cit y of Ph il a. , 142 F.3d58 2, 59 9 (3dCir. 19 98 ). “A s e c t i on 1983 c aus e of a c t i on a c c r ue s whe n the pl a i nt i ff kne w or s houl d have known of the i njury upon whi c h i t s a c t i on i s ba s e d. ” I d. ; s e e a l s o W a l l a c e v. Kat o, 549 U. S. 384, 38 8 (20 07 ) ( explai ning that a c ause of

ac ti ongeneral ly

ac cr ues when “the plai ntiff can f i l e s u i t an do b t a i nr e l i e f

” ) ( qu o t at i o nmark s o mi tt e d ) . H e r e , th e l at e s t o f C a s s e l l ’ s c l a i ms is al le ged to h ave occurr ed onJanu ar y 1, 20 06 , when the po li ce al le gedly ar re st ed Cass el l, beat

him , andtookhim

to a hospita l. Cass el l fil ed suit wellm ore than two years

### Withreg ardto th e o n ly o th er g o v ern m en tal d ef

en d an t, th e S S A , th ere ap p ears to 2 

### n o c o nn e c t i o nb e tw e e nC a s s e l l ’ s c l a i m a g a i n s t th e S S Aan dh i s a l l e g e dc i v i lr i g h t s c l a i ms ag ain st th e o th er d ef

en d an ts. A s th e D istrict C o urt o b serv ed , in so f ar as C assell c ha l l e nge s an SSA de c i s i on t o di s c ont i nue be ne fi t s , he ha s not e xhaus t e d a dm i ni s tr at i ve re m edie s, and thu s his cl ai m was properl y

dismis se d. See 42 U .S.C. § 40 5(g). 4 l at e r , i n Nove m

be r 2008. Ca s s e l lr a i s e s no a l l e gat i on that woul d a l l ow the l i m i t at i ons pe r i od t o be gi n wi thi n two ye ar s of the dat e on whi c h he fi l e d s ui t . Cons e que nt l y , the Distri ct Co urt properl y

dismis se d h is cl ai m s a gainst the Cit y of Ph il adelph ia . 2 

### The Di s tr i c t

Court pr ope r l y di s m i s s e d the r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s for l a c k of juri sdic ti on . A § 1 98 3 act ion m ay be m ai ntai ned o nly

agai nst a defend ant who ac ts un der c ol or of s t at e l aw. W e s t

v. Atki ns , 487 U. S. 42, 48 ( 1988) . Pr i vat e a c t or s , s uc h a s the no n-go vernm enta l defendants nam ed here, can b e s ai d to act un der c olor of

st at e l aw onl y i f the i r c onduc t i s fa i r l y attr i but abl e t o the s t at e . Se e Re nde l l - Bake r v. Kohn, 457 U .S . 8 3 0 , 8 3 8 (1 9 8 2 ). C assell m ak es n o alleg atio nth at w o u ldev enarg u ab ly sup p o rt a c l a i m that the pr i vat e de fe ndant s a c t e d unde r c ol or of s t at e l aw i n the i r

tr e atm e nt

of C assell at h o sp itals an dh o m eless sh elters. B ecau se h is claim s, if any , ag ain st th ese d ef en d an ts arise un d er state law , th e D istrict C o urt p ro p erly h eldth at it lack edf

ed eralqu estio nj urisd ictio nun d er 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . Inad d itio n , C assell, a P enn sylv an ia r e s i de nt , ha s not

e s t abl i s he d c om

pl e t e di ve r s i ty

of c i t i z e ns hip for

pur pos e s of jur i s di c t i on un der 28 U .S.C. § 13 32 . As a re sult , the cl ai m s a gainst the pri vate -party

defend ants were p ro p erly d ism issed . I n s um , be c aus e thi s a

ppe a lpr e s e nt s “ no s ubs t ant i a lque s t i on, ” 3d Ci r . I OP Ch.

### 5

10 .6, we wil l s umm aril y

affirm the Dis tric t Court ’s ju dg m ent. Th e m otion b y appell ee T en et H ealth sy stem

H ahn em ann , L L C , f

o r summ ary

actio nis g ran ted .