2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-18-2011

Koran Cain v. Dept Pub Welfare Ofc Sec Recon

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2748

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

"Koran Cain v. Dept Pub Welfare Ofc Sec Recon" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 657.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/657
GLD-263 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2748

___________

KORAN CAIN,

Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

RECONSIDERATION UNIT; DEVON D. GRANT

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-03960)

District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible 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, 201)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

In June 2011, Koran Cain file a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights 

were violated in 2006 when the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare and one of its 

employees “wrongfully adjudicated” his application for benefits. The District Court sua 
2

sponte dismissed the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that Cain’s claims were 

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Cain appealed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review 

over the dismissal of Cain’s claims. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 

2000). The District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted because it was 

apparent from the face of the complaint that the claims were time-barred. If the 

allegations, taken as true, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations, a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Jones v. 

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); see also, e.g., Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Corp., 570 F.2d 

1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978). The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative 

defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). Where that defense is obvious from the face of the 

complaint and no development of the record is necessary, however, a court may dismiss a 

time-barred complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a 

claim. See, e.g., Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006).

When considering a civil rights claim, federal courts apply the relevant state’s 

statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 368 (3d 

Cir. 2000). For civil rights actions originating in Pennsylvania, a two-year statute of 

limitations applies. Id.; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524. According to Cain, the events giving 

rise to his claims occurred in March 2006. Accordingly, Cain’s complaint, filed in June 

2011, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The District Court was entitled 
3

to reach the limitations question because it was obvious from the complaint and required 

no factual development. See Fogle, 435 F.3d at 1258. 

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.