Brandon Moody v. Jude Conroy
680 F. App'x 140
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Moody, detained pretrial, alleges prison officers seized his mail and privileged legal materials on May 14, 2008, claiming a court order; no copy of any order or subpoena was ever produced.
- Detective Verrechio took the seized materials and gave them to Assistant DA Conroy; some materials were returned only after Moody's trial and incompletely; Moody was convicted May 23, 2008.
- Moody filed a pro se § 1983 suit against Conroy, Verrechio, and Gaul; initial filings bear dates May 19–21, 2010 and were docketed May 24, 2010. He invoked the prison mailbox rule in a certificate of service dated May 20, 2010.
- The defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year limitations period; the District Court dismissed the complaint as filed May 24, 2010 (thus untimely) and denied Moody’s reconsideration motion without addressing the mailbox rule.
- The Third Circuit reviewed accrual, tolling, and filing-date issues, construing Moody’s allegations liberally and considering whether equitable tolling applied because defendants allegedly misled him about the legality of the seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the § 1983 cause of action accrue? | Accrual on or after May 20, 2008 when facts about seizure emerged. | Accrual on May 14, 2008 when seizure occurred and Moody knew of the injury. | Accrual occurred May 14, 2008 (awareness of injury starts limitations). |
| Whether equitable tolling/estoppel applies to delay accrual | Tolling until May 20, 2008 because defendants misled/concealed facts (forged order, assurances). | No tolling; Moody had notice May 14. | Sufficiently pleaded concealment to potentially toll until May 20, 2008; plausible at motion-to-dismiss stage. |
| Proper filing date under the prison mailbox rule | Filing should be the date Moody delivered papers to prison authorities (May 20 or May 21, 2010). | Filing date is docket date May 24, 2010; thus untimely. | Mailbox rule may apply; District Court erred by not considering certificate and mailbox rule—remand to decide filing date. |
| Jurisdictional/appeal technicality over reconsideration | Moody’s reconsideration was timely under the mailbox rule; appellate review is proper. | Appellants argue lack of jurisdiction due to missing/untimely appeal. | Court finds Moody’s briefs show timely filing for reconsideration; appellate jurisdiction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration denials)
- Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397 (3d Cir. 2011) (limits on motions for reconsideration)
- Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 1998) (state personal-injury statute governs § 1983 limitations)
- Montgomery v. DeSimone, 159 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 1998) (§ 1983 accrual governed by federal law—claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury)
- Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (accrual occurs when plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (cause of action accrues when wrongful act results in damages, even if full extent not known)
- Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 769 F.3d 850 (3d Cir. 2014) (accrual when aware of search/seizure, not when illegality later discovered)
- Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360 (3d Cir. 2000) (equitable estoppel tolling where defendant intentionally misleads plaintiff)
- Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994) (pleading standards for equitable tolling at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (prison mailbox rule: filing date is when prisoner delivers to prison authorities)
- Pabon v. Superintendent S.C.I. Mahanoy, 654 F.3d 385 (3d Cir. 2011) (application of prison mailbox rule in § 1983 context)