Filed: Oct. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-4626 _ EMMIT GILES, Appellant v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA _ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civ. Action No. 11-3773) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg _ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 26, 2013 _ Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: October 8, 2013) _ OPINION _ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Appella
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-4626 _ EMMIT GILES, Appellant v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA _ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civ. Action No. 11-3773) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg _ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 26, 2013 _ Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: October 8, 2013) _ OPINION _ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Appellan..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
No. 12-4626
______________
EMMIT GILES,
Appellant
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
______________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. Action No. 11-3773)
District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 26, 2013
______________
Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: October 8, 2013)
______________
OPINION
______________
SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Emmit Giles brought suit against the City of Philadelphia (the “City”),
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City violated his Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by withholding the results of an atomic absorption test that
was performed during the criminal investigation and that ultimately led to his homicide
conviction. The District Court granted the City’s motion to dismiss on statute of
limitations grounds and subsequently denied Giles’s motion for reconsideration. We will
affirm.
I.
As we write principally for the benefit of the parties, we recite only the essential
facts and procedural history. On August 17, 1989, Giles was arrested and charged with
the murder of his girlfriend. Soon after his arrest, the police conducted an atomic
absorption test on his hands. The results of this test could show whether Giles had
recently fired a weapon. Giles and his attorney were notified of the fact that the test was
performed during discovery. Giles was tried in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
and convicted of second degree murder on October 31, 1990. He was subsequently
sentenced to life in prison.
On August 9, 2006, Giles filed a request with the Philadelphia Police Department
(the “Department”) seeking the results of the atomic absorption test pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Right to Know Act, 65 P.S. §§ 66.1-9 (repealed 2008). The Department
denied the request on August 15, 2006 because it found that the information sought
related to a criminal investigation and hence was exempt from disclosure under the Act.
On September 14, 2006, Giles filed an administrative appeal of the Department’s
decision in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, but that appeal was dismissed on
June 1, 2007 for lack of prosecution.
2
On October 10, 2008, Giles filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking
an injunction compelling the City and the Department to release the test results. On
February 27, 2010, Giles’s petition was denied.
On June 10, 2011, Giles filed the present lawsuit, alleging that the City violated
his due process rights by refusing to produce the test results. The District Court granted
the City’s motion to dismiss, finding that Giles’s Section 1983 claim was time-barred,
and subsequently denied Giles’s motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We generally review a
district court’s rulings on motions for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Long v.
Atl. City Police Dep’t, 670 F.3d 436, 446-47 (3d Cir. 2012). To the extent that a district
court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration involves an issue of law, we review the
underlying legal determination de novo.1 Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc.,
662 F.3d 212,
220 (3d Cir. 2011); see also
Long, 670 F.3d at 447 n.20 (explaining that our plenary
review of legal determinations “stems from the understanding that an appeal from a
denial of a Motion for Reconsideration brings up the underlying judgment for review”
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
1
If the ruling on the motion for reconsideration involved factual findings, we
would review those findings for clear error. Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999).
3
III.
In actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal courts apply the relevant state’s statute
of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276-79 (1985).
Under Pennsylvania law, the statute of limitations for a personal injury action is two
years, see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524, and thus a two-year statute of limitations
applies to this case. See Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia,
142 F.3d
582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998).
The date when a Section 1983 action accrues, however, is a matter of federal law.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). A Section 1983 claim accrues “when the
plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which [his] action is based.”
Sameric, 142 F.3d at 599; see also Sandutch v. Muroski,
684 F.2d 252, 254 (3d Cir.
1982) (per curiam) (holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is
aware, or should be aware, of the existence of and source of the injury, not when the
potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong).
Here, Giles asserts that the City violated his rights by denying him access to the
atomic absorption test results. Giles was aware of the existence of his injury, namely, the
Department’s refusal to turn over the results, after he received the Department’s denial on
August 15, 2006, see Sameric, 142 F.3d at 599-600 (finding that the statute of limitations
for a cause of action based upon an improper denial of a building demolition permit
accrued when the permit was denied), or, at the latest, when his administrative appeal to
the state court was dismissed in June 2007. Thus, the two-year limitations period expired
no later than June 2009.
4
Giles attempts to circumvent the limitations period by arguing that his claims did
not accrue until the Supreme Court decided Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011),
or, in the alternative, when this Court decided Grier v. Klem,
591 F.3d 672 (3d Cir.
2010). Both cases held that a post-conviction claim for DNA testing may be pursued in a
Section 1983 action. Those rulings, however, did not recognize any new constitutional
right for the first time or overturn some prior precedent that would have prevented Giles
from bringing a Section 1983 claim sooner. They merely made explicit that Section 1983
was an avenue by which plaintiffs could raise this claim, as other courts had already
concluded.2
Moreover, a federal cause of action accrues upon awareness of injury, not upon
awareness of a potential legal theory or cause of action. See United States v. Kubrick,
444 U.S. 111, 122 (1979);
Sandutch, 684 F.2d at 254. Ignorance of the law is not a basis
for tolling the statute of limitations. Sch. Dist. of Allentown v. Marshall,
657 F.2d 16, 21
(3d Cir. 1981). Accordingly, neither the 2011 Skinner case nor the 2010 Grier case serve
as a trigger for the statute of limitations period. Because the statute of limitations was
triggered when Giles became aware of his injury, which here was no later than June
2
In fact, the majority of courts faced with this issue had concluded before 2009
that a Section 1983 claim was available in this situation. See, e.g., McKithen v. Brown,
481 F.3d 89, 99 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that a claim seeking DNA testing is cognizable
under Section 1983); Savory v. Lyons,
469 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2006) (same);
Osborne v. Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist.,
423 F.3d 1050, 1054-55 (9th
Cir. 2005) (same); Bradley v. Pryor,
305 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2002) (same);
Young v. Phila. Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, No. 08-3463,
2009 WL 278968, at *5-6
(E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2009) (same); Derrickson v. Del. Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, No. 04-
1569,
2006 WL 2135854, at *7-8 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2006) (same).
5
2007, he was required to have filed his Section 1983 action by June 2009. His June 2011
complaint was filed well beyond the limitations period and, as a result, is time-barred.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s Order granting the
motion to dismiss.
6
