Task: songer_stateclaim

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court dismiss the case because of the failure of the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".The issue hereby considered also pertains to cases where the court concluded that there was no proper cause of action.

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
We have been directed by the United States Supreme Court to reconsider our previous decision in this case, reported at 699 F.2d 675 (3d Cir.1983), in light of Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). Johnson v. Swyka, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2108, 85 L.Ed.2d 474 (1985). Upon reconsideration we remand the cause to the district court for further proceedings.
Appellant Carl Lee Johnson, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, alleged that he was taken to the institution’s Restricted Housing Unit following a sit-down demonstration. The next day he received a misconduct report that he contends was false and did not provide him with adequate notice of the charges against him. He was afforded a disciplinary hearing on August 31, 1981, before the institution’s Hearing Committee and found guilty. After an unsuccessful appeal to the institution’s Program Review Committee, he brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the district court on May 13, 1982. The magistrate to whom the action was referred concluded that the action was time-barred by 42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5522(b)(1), Pennsylvania’s six-month limitations period. Her report was adopted by the district court in an order entered on October 25, 1982, and Johnson appealed.
When we first decided this case, we vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the proceedings for reconsideration of the statute of limitations issue in light of this court’s decision in Knoll v. Springfield Township School District, 699 F.2d 137 (3d Cir.1983). See Johnson v. Swyka, 699 F.2d at 676. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari in both Knoll and this case, vacated our judgments, and remanded both cases to us for reconsideration in light of Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). On remand in Knoll v. Springfield Township School District, 763 F.2d 584 (3d Cir.1985), we observed that the Court in Wilson v. Garcia held that “the state statute of limitations governing tort actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries provides the appropriate limitation period [for § 1983 actions].” Id. at 585 (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 1947). We held that Pennsylvania’s two-year limitations period for personal injuries now should be applied to actions brought under § 1983. Id. at 585.
In our original decision in this case, we noted that the Supreme Court had granted a petition for certiorari in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), and that the disposition of Hewitt could affect the decision on the merits here. Hewitt has now been decided. Upon remand, therefore, the district court will adjudicate this case in light of Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254, Knoll v. Springfield Township School District, 763 F.2d 584, and Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675.
We will vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with the foregoing.

Question: Did the court dismiss the case because of the failure of the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D