Lisa Ostuni v. WaWa Mart, 532 F. App'x 110

Pro se plaintiff Lisa Marie Ostuni filed a § 1983 suit arising from her September 4, 2009 arrest by Officer Paul Duffy, alleging false arrest and excessive force.
Ostuni was later convicted of aggravated assault related to that incident and served the sentence; she also had unrelated convictions from June 2009.
The Magistrate Judge and District Court construed the pro se complaint as asserting Fourth Amendment false arrest and excessive force claims and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, except preserving a false-arrest claim dependent on invalidation of the conviction.
Ostuni moved for reconsideration and for an extension of time to appeal; the District Court denied reconsideration and initially denied an extension, but this Court remanded and held the district court erred in refusing the extension because Ostuni showed excusable neglect under Pioneer.
On remand the District Court granted the extension; this appeal addresses the underlying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and denial of reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 1983 false-arrest and excessive-force claims are time-barred	Ostuni argued her claims were timely (and sought equitable tolling for a period when a submission was misaddressed)	Defendants asserted the claims accrued at arrest and are barred by Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations	Court held claims accrued Sept. 4, 2009; filed April 2012 — claims are time-barred despite brief claimed tolling period
Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper	Ostuni sought opportunity to amend her pro se complaint	Defendants argued amendment would be futile because claims are clearly time-barred on the face of the complaint	Court held dismissal without leave to amend was proper because amendment would be futile
Application of Heck favorable-termination rule	Ostuni implied Heck might bar dismissal until conviction invalidated	Defendants maintained statute-of-limitations accrual and Wallace clarify accrual at arrest despite Heck	Court held Wallace controls; statute of limitations accrued at arrest and Heck does not prevent time-bar dismissal here
Denial of motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)	Ostuni requested reconsideration of dismissal	District Court found Rule 59(e) standards unmet	Court affirmed denial of reconsideration as not meeting Rule 59(e) requirements

Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for appellate review of pro se prisoner appeals)
Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard of review for denial of reconsideration)
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (futility justifies denying leave to amend)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (statute-of-limitations bar can be apparent on complaint)
Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (§ 1915 dismissal of time-barred claims obvious on face)
Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1993) (applying Pennsylvania two-year limitations to § 1983 actions)
Napier v. Thirty or More Unidentified Fed. Agents, Employees or Officers, 855 F.2d 1080 (3d Cir. 1988) (limitations period for § 1983 under Pennsylvania law)
Sameric Corp. of Delaware v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 1998) (accrual when plaintiff knew or should have known of injury)
Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 1998) (false-arrest/excessive-force claims accrue at arrest)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (favorable-termination rule for § 1983 challenges to convictions)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual of wrongful-arrest claims occurs at the time of arrest)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (standard for excusable neglect in filing deadlines)
Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (standards for Rule 59(e) reconsideration)