Paluch v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department Corrections, 442 F. App'x 690

Paluch, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals district court dismissal of his second §1983 complaint under §1915(e)(2)(B) and denial of his motion to reconsider.
In 2004 Paluch was assaulted by a cellmate, allegedly instigated by Officer Dawson; he sought surveillance footage and pursued administrative grievance relief which was denied.
Paluch learned the surveillance footage had been overwritten; in 2009 he filed a second §1983 action alleging ADA and constitutional and state-law violations related to preservation of video evidence.
The second complaint comprised five counts: (1) DOC policies to protect epileptic inmates, (2) SCI-Huntingdon officers’ failure to file reports, (3) failure to record the assault on video, (4) failure to preserve video evidence for foreseeable litigation, and (5) Fisher’s failure to preserve footage and conduct an investigation.
District Court dismissed Counts 1-3 as time-barred and Counts 4-5 as meritless; did not address the investigation claim in Count 5.
Paluch moved to reconsider; the district court treated it as untimely under Local Rule 7.10, but the appeal challenged both the dismissal and the reconsideration denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Paluch's motion to reconsider	Paluch contends timely under Rule 59(e).	District court applied post-amendment time limits under Local Rule 7.10.	Timely under amended Rule 59(e); retroactive application followed.
Application of amended Rule 59(e) vs. Local Rule 7.10	Amended Rule 59(e) governs reconsideration.	Local Rule 7.10 governs timing.	Amended Rule 59(e) governs; local rule cannot shorten that period.
Timeliness of Counts 1-3	Counts 1-3 toll due to exhaustion and discovery.	Counts accrued in 2004 and tolled only during exhaustion; untimely.	Counts 1-3 time-barred; accrual in Sept. 2004 with tolling to Jan. 2005, still untimely.
viability of Count 4 regarding preservation policies	DOC/SCI-Huntingdon failed to preserve video evidence for foreseeable litigation.	DOC had policies directing preservation of videos; no claim for relief.	Count 4 lacking viable claim; preservation policies exist, negating a freestanding duty violation.
viability of Count 5 spoliation and investigation claims	Fisher spoliated evidence and failed to investigate.	No freestanding spoliation claim recognized; no required investigation duty.	No cognizable spoliation action and no obligation to investigate, justifying dismissal.

United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2003) (timeliness and scope of Rule 59(e) review)
Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1988) (functional approach to determining which rule applies to motions)
Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (tolling during administrative exhaustion in §1983 actions)
Inmates of Attica Corr. Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1973) (no affirmative obligation to investigate grievances)
Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004) (amended rules can apply retroactively to pending proceedings)