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 9-29-2009 

# Geoff rey Atwell v . M ark S ch wei k e r 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 . 09-2329

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_2009

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 2009 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 " Ge off r ey Atwell v

. M ark S ch wei ke r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 582. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/582AL D- 3 1 5 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- 2329

___________ GEO FF REY W I LLAR D A TW ELL, A ppel l ant v . M AR K S . S CH WEI KE R; E DWARD G . RE NDE L L ; J UDI T H B . S E L VE Y; S AR AH H A RT , Pe nn s y l va ni a D e pa r t mentof Cor r e c t i on s Chi e f Cou ns e l ; RA N D Y SEA RS, P e n n s y l v a n i a De p a r t me n to f Co r r e c t i o n s De p u tyCh i e f Co u n s e l ; M I CH AE L F AR NAN, Pe n n s y l v a n i a Dep a r t me n to f Corr e t i o n s As s i s t a n tChi e f Cou n s e l ; THO M AS CO RBETT, J R. ; J AM E S O. T HOMAS , J R. ; GR E GOR Y R . NE UHAUS E R; R. DOUGL AS SHERM AN ; RO BERT A . GR EEVY a n d ATTO RN EY G ENER AL D . M I CH AEL FI SHER

____________________________________ 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. 06- cv- 01048) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________________________________ 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 Sept ember17, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember29, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM G e o f f re yA tw e ll ap p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g a p p e llee s’ m o tio n to d i s mi s s h i s c o mp l a i n t . F o rth e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. T h e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se a n d th e d e tails o f A tw e ll’s c laim s a re w e ll know n t o the part i es and nee d notbe di s cus s ed atl ength. B r i efl y , A tw el l fi l ed a c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a lleg in g th a t ap p e llee s f a iled to in v e stig a te h is cl ai m s thathe w as bei ng hel d pas tthe expi r at i on of hi s m axi m um s ent ence . T he D i s tr i ct C our tconcl uded thatA tw el l ’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed byH eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477, 4 8 7 (1 9 9 4 ), an d b yth e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. A tw e ll file d a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e nee d notaddr es s w hetherthe compl ai nti s barr ed byH eck be caus e w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthati tw as unt i m el y . C l ai m s br oughtpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 ar e s ubj ectt o the s t at e s t atut e of lim ita tio n s f

o r p e rs o n a l in

ju ry a c tio n s . W ils o n v . G a rc ia , 4 7 1 U .S . 2 6 1 , 2 6 6 -6 7 (1 9 8 5 ). I n Penns y l vani a, the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fora per s onal i nj uryact i on i s tw o y ear s . 42 P a .C .S .A . § 5 5 2 4 . A c a u se o f a c tio n a c c ru e s w h e n th e p lain tiff k n o w s o r h a s re a so n to know of the i nj urythatcons t i tut es the bas i s of the caus e of a ct i on. Sam er i c C orp. of D e la w a re , In c . v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 1 4 2 F .3 d 5 8 2 , 5 9 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A tw e ll arg u e s th a t h is s e n ten c e sh o u ld h a v e e x p ire d o n O c to b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 . In h is oppos i t i on t o t he appe l l ees ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , A tw el l ar gued thathi s compl ai ntw as t i m el ybeca us e he ha d t o exhaus tthe pr i s on admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e pr oces s . I n a3

gr i evanc e r es pons e dat ed J anuary9, 2003, a pr i s on offi ci al expl ai ned the ca l cul at i on of the s ent ence s and i nform ed A tw el l thatthe maxi m um expi r at i on dat e of hi s s ent ence s w as M ay22, 2004. T he A ct i ng C hi ef G r i evanc e C oor di nat ordeni ed the fi nal r evi ew of that g rie v a n c e o n Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 . T h u s, b yJu n e 2 0 0 3 , A tw e ll h a d f in ish e d e x h a u stin g h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es and knew thatpr i s on offi ci al s had ca l cul at ed the maxi m um expi r at i on dat e of hi s s ent ence s t o be M ay22, 2004. H i s compl ai nt , pos t m arked on M ay 20 , 20 06 , w as fi l ed b ey on d the tw o-y ear s t atute of l i m i t at i on s. A tw el l argues that hi s com plai nt w as t i m el yfi l ed w i thin tw o y ears of h i s r el ease f ro m p riso n o n M a y2 2 , 2 0 0 4 . B e c a u se A tw e ll k n e w o f h is a lleg e d in

ju rya t th e tim e it w as i nfl i ct ed, the cont i nui ng w r ong theorydoes notappl y . See B arnes v. A m er i can T o b a c c o C o ., 1 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 , 1 5 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (“ W e u n d e rsta n d F o w k e s[ v . P e n n sy lv a n ia R .R . C o ., 2 6 4 F .2 d 3 9 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 5 9 )] to m e a n th a t co n tin u in g c o n d u c t o f d e f e n d a n t w ill n o t sto p th e tick in g o f

th e lim itatio n s c lo c k b e g u n w h e n p lain tiff o b tain e d re q u isite i nform at i on. O n di s cover i ng an i nj uryand i t s caus e, a cl ai m antm us tchoos e t o s ue or for ego thatr emedy . ”) ( quot i ng K i chl i ne v. C ons ol i dat ed R ai l C orp. , 800 F. 2d 356, 360 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 )). Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he ap p ea l. S ee T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 2 7 . 4 . F o r th e a b o v e re aso n s, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. S e e T h ir d C ir c u it I .O .P . 1 0 .6 .