For the reasons stated below, the motions of Defendants Hopton and Swiger for summary judgment will be granted. When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing substantive law. The non-moving party may not rely on bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions. Neither may the non-moving party rest on the allegations in the pleadings.
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on two grounds.
First, Defendants argue that all of Plaintiff's claims against them are barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity they enjoy as constables in the performance of their duties. Under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years. Similarly, claims of false imprisonment accrue on the date on which the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that he was falsely imprisoned. For claims of malicious prosecution, however, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff were terminated in his favor.