Luther Ryals, Jr. v. County of Montgomery, 3rd Cir. (2013)
Luther Ryals, Jr. v. County of Montgomery, 3rd Cir. (2013)
GLD-149
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-4234
___________
LUTHER S. RYALS, JR.,
Appellant
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY; MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
POTTSTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOUGLAS B. BREIDENBACH, JR.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2:12-cv-05439)
District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 7, 2013
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 15, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Luther Ryals, Jr., a Pennsylvania state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his
complaint by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1
Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
On September 10, 2008, the Pottstown Police Department arrested Ryals on
various drug-related charges. According to Ryals, the magistrates signature on the
Affidavit of Probable Cause attached to the criminal complaint against him was forged by
Detective Edward Kropp of the Pottstown Police Department. Ryals alleged in a 42
U.S.C. 1983 complaint that he informed his attorney, Douglas B. Breidenbach, Jr., of
the alleged forgery before trial commenced on July 28, 2010. For relief, Ryals requested
that his sentence be vacated, that he receive $10 million in damages, that Detective Kropp
be dismissed from the police force, and that his lawyer be suspended from practicing law
for six to 12 months.1 The District Court dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B). Ryals then timely filed this appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and exercise
plenary review over the District Courts dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229
F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a
We agree with the District Court that Ryals request that his sentence be vacated
is not cognizable under 1983 and must be asserted in a habeas corpus petition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
2
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive dismissal, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We may summarily affirm on
any basis supported by the record. Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011)
(per curiam).
III.
The District Court properly dismissed Ryals complaint.2 Ryals false arrest and
imprisonment claims are governed by the two-year limitations period found in 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. 5524(2). See Knoll v. Springfield Twp. Sch. Dist., 763 F.2d 584, 585 (3d
Cir. 1985). However, under federal law, 1983 claims accrue when the plaintiff has a
complete and present cause of action. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007)
(citations omitted). Ryals false arrest and imprisonment claims accrued when he became
detained pursuant to legal process. Id. at 397. Even if Ryals was not aware of the
alleged forgery on September 10, 2008 (the date of his arrest), his complaint and attached
exhibits indisputably show that he was fully aware of his claim by mid-July 2010.
However, Ryals did not file his complaint until September 2012. This was too late.
We agree with the District Courts generous construction of Ryals complaint as
alleging claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and due
process violations. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
3
Furthermore, we see no reason to toll the statute of limitations. Unless
inconsistent with federal law, state law governs the issue of whether a limitations period
should be tolled. See Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 1989). In
Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations may be tolled by the discovery rule, which applies
when an injury or its cause was not known or reasonably knowable despite the exercise
of due diligence. Mest v. Cabot Corp., 449 F.3d 502, 510 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting
Pocono Intl Raceway v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468, 471 (Pa. 1983)). In his
notice of appeal, Ryals asserts that he did not know of the alleged forgery until July 12,
2011, when a handwriting examiner agreed that the signature did not appear to be
authentic. However, his argument is belied by his complaints exhibits, which indicate
that he wrote to his attorney regarding the possible forgery in July 2010. Accordingly,
the examiners report does not provide a basis for tolling based upon the discovery rule.3
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will affirm
the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
The District Court also properly dismissed Ryals malicious prosecution and due
process claims. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Furthermore, the
District Court did not commit reversible error when it dismissed Ryals complaint
without offering leave to amend. We do not see how any amendment to his complaint
would save his claims. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.
2002).
4
You might also like
- No ratings yetGeorge McKay v. Dayle Hammock, Individually and as Detective and Deputy Sheriff for Routt County, Colorado Nick Deluca, Sheriff, Routt County, Colorado Lieutenant J.W. Pfeffer, Individually and as an Officer of the Ruidoso City Police Department, Ruidoso, New Mexico Ruidoso City Police Department, Ruidoso, Lincoln County, New Mexico and Routt County Sheriff's Office, Routt County, Colorado, 730 F.2d 1367, 10th Cir. (1984)12 pages
