Francene Tearpock-Martini v. Borough of Shickshinny
756 F.3d 232
3rd Cir.2014Background
- In 2008 the Borough of Shickshinny installed a directional church sign on municipal right-of-way near Francene Tearpock-Martini’s home; the sign remained in place and was later reinforced with concrete.
- Tearpock-Martini posted a protest sign on her own property; borough officials threatened prosecution and she removed it.
- In November 2012 Tearpock-Martini filed a § 1983 suit alleging: (Count I) Equal Protection violation for denying her sign; (Count II) ongoing Establishment Clause violation from the municipal church sign; and (Count III) Free Speech violation for threats to prosecute her protest sign.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Pennsylvania’s two‑year statute of limitations; the district court dismissed all counts as time‑barred.
- On appeal the Third Circuit considered whether state limitations law applies to an Establishment Clause challenge to a still‑existing government religious display and whether the continuing‑violation doctrine tolled limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania's two‑year statute of limitations applies to a § 1983 Establishment Clause challenge to a still‑existing religious display | Tearpock‑Martini: continuing constitutional violation; each day the display exists a new claim accrues, so limitations should not bar suit | Borough: the last affirmative act was installation in 2008, outside the limitations period; continuing‑violation doctrine does not apply | State limitations period is inapplicable to Establishment Clause claims challenging a still‑existing display; vacated dismissal of Count II |
| Whether the continuing‑violation doctrine tolled the accrual of the Establishment Clause claim | Plaintiff invoked continuing‑violation as equitable tolling so later suit is timely | Defendants argued ongoing presence is an effect, not a continuing affirmative act, so doctrine does not apply | Court rejected continuing‑violation as basis here (installation was the last affirmative act) but found another federal‑law reason to exempt Count II from state limitations |
| Whether other § 1983 claims (Equal Protection, Free Speech) are time‑barred | Plaintiff did not show tolling or recent acts within two years | Borough relied on Pennsylvania two‑year statute | Court affirmed dismissal of Counts I and III as time‑barred under Pennsylvania law |
| Whether the appellate court should decide the merits of the Establishment Clause claim on appeal | Plaintiff sought relief on merits; defendants invited merits review | Appellate court noted district court had not ruled on merits | Court declined to decide merits and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (Establishment Clause prohibits government acts whose predominant purpose is to advance religion)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (state limitations law governs § 1983 actions unless inconsistent with federal law)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal law governs accrual of § 1983 claims)
- Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2001) (continuing‑violation doctrine is narrow; focuses on defendants’ affirmative acts)
- Brenner v. Local 514, 927 F.2d 1283 (3d Cir. 1991) (describing continuing‑violation equitable exception)
- Gonzales v. N. Twp. of Lake Cnty., 4 F.3d 1412 (7th Cir. 1993) (district court treated daily existence of monument as recurring violation; Seventh Circuit found violation on merits)
- Pitts v. City of Kankakee, 267 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2001) (discussion distinguishing Establishment Clause claims from private injury claims and suggesting each day a display exists may give rise to a new right)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014) (consideration of long‑running religious practices in public settings)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (upholding long‑standing Ten Commandments display on state property)