Dukuly v. Woodmen World Life ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MEL MADOU DUKULY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE
INSURANCE SOCIETY; WILLIAM GROCE,
Sued under color of state law and
in his individual capacity; C.
No. 99-6901
WALLS, Detective, #1398, sued in
his official and individual capacity;
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, sued as a municipality
county government in the state of
Maryland,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-99-1694-AMD)
Submitted: November 30, 1999
Decided: December 28, 1999
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Mel Madou Dukuly, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Mel Madou Dukuly appeals the district court's sua sponte dis-
missal of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.
Dukuly alleged various constitutional violations arising from the
lodging against him of a detainer for theft. Because the district court
should have afforded Dukuly the opportunity to allege when he
learned that the criminal charges against him were filed, we vacate the
district court's order and remand for further proceedings.
Dukuly asserted that, while incarcerated on apparently unrelated
charges, he was charged with the theft from his former employer of
a laptop computer and a printer. The theft allegedly occurred between
January 4, 1996, and May 30, 1996. The district court found that
Dukuly should have known of his injuries no later than May 30 and
that the three-year limitations period, see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S.
261, 266 (1985); Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann.§ 5-101 (1995),
had expired by the time Dukuly filed his complaint on June 11, 1999.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the action as time-barred.
Dukuly alleged, among other things, that the Defendants conspired
to falsely arrest, unlawfully detain, and defame him. The cause of
action arose not when the theft allegedly occurred, but rather when
Dukuly received notice that he had been charged with the theft. The
record is silent as to this crucial date. We therefore vacate the judg-
ment of the district court and remand so that Dukuly may amend his
complaint to allege when he first learned of the filing of the criminal
charge.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2