Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on January 25,
Petition from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No: 2:18-cv-01541)
District Judge: Honorable Wendy Beetlestone
Michael I. McDermott, Esq. Counsel for Appellant
Jennifer MacNaughton, Esq. Andrew Pomager, Esq. City of
Philadelphia Law Department Counsel for Appellees
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, and CHAGARES and BIBAS, Circuit
defendant commits a continuing violation of the law, the
limitations period starts running from the defendant's
last act, not from when the effects of that violation end.
Here, the defendants arrested and prosecuted James Randall in
Philadelphia for drug and weapons crimes. As a result of that
prosecution, New Jersey and Delaware County, Pennsylvania,
lodged detainers against Randall for violating his probation.
So he remained in those jurisdictions' custody until
December 2015. But the defendants' last act was in August
2015, when they dropped the charges and sent Randall to New
clock started to run on Randall's Section 1983
malicious-prosecution claim in August 2015. And that clock
ran out in August 2017. But Randall filed this suit in
December 2017-four months too late. So we will affirm the
District Court's dismissal of this suit as untimely.
December 2013, Philadelphia police found drugs, a gun, and
money in an apartment that they thought was Randall's. So
the police arrested Randall, and the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office charged him with drug and weapons
crimes. But it dropped all the charges on August 24, 2015.
was not the end of Randall's time in custody. When he was
arrested in Philadelphia, he was already on probation in both
New Jersey and Delaware County, Pennsylvania. And when they
heard about his arrest, both those jurisdictions issued
detainers for him. So after dropping the charges,
Pennsylvania released Randall into New Jersey's custody.
He remained in custody, first in New Jersey and then in
Delaware County, until December 24, 2015.
December 26, 2017, Randall sued the Philadelphia Law
Department and the Philadelphia police officers who had
arrested him. His amended complaint alleged several Section
1983 claims and Pennsylvania tort claims. The defendants
moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The
District Court granted the motion, dismissing Randall's
claims with prejudice as time-barred.
appeals only the dismissal of his Section 1983
malicious-prosecution claim. We review that dismissal de
novo. Conrad v. Pa. State Police, 902 F.3d 178, 182
(3d Cir. 2018).