Koran Cain v. Dept Pub Welfare Ofc Sec Recon

GLD-263 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-2748
___________
KORAN CAIN,
Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
RECONSIDERATION UNIT; DEVON D. GRANT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-03960)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 11, 2011
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES AND COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed August 18, 201)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
In June 2011, Koran Cain file a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights
were violated in 2006 when the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare and one of its
employees “wrongfully adjudicated” his application for benefits. The District Court sua
sponte dismissed the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that Cain’s claims were
barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Cain appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review
over the dismissal of Cain’s claims. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.
2000). The District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted because it was
apparent from the face of the complaint that the claims were time-barred. If the
allegations, taken as true, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); see also, e.g., Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Corp., 570 F.2d
1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978). The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative
defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). Where that defense is obvious from the face of the
complaint and no development of the record is necessary, however, a court may dismiss a
time-barred complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a
claim. See, e.g., Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006).
When considering a civil rights claim, federal courts apply the relevant state’s
statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360, 368 (3d
Cir. 2000). For civil rights actions originating in Pennsylvania, a two-year statute of
limitations applies. Id.; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524. According to Cain, the events giving
rise to his claims occurred in March 2006. Accordingly, Cain’s complaint, filed in June
2011, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The District Court was entitled
2
to reach the limitations question because it was obvious from the complaint and required
no factual development. See Fogle, 435 F.3d at 1258.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
3