Robert Fennell v. John E. Wetzel
20-3575
| 3rd Cir. | Oct 13, 2021Background
- Robert Fennell, a pro se Pennsylvania prisoner, filed a § 1983 action; the District Court required an amended complaint limited to incidents in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- In May 2019 Fennell alleged unconstitutional conditions, excessive force, confiscation of legal/personal property, retaliation, strip searches, and denial of medical care at SCI Smithfield, with most incidents dated 2011–2014.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that most claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; the District Court granted summary judgment and Fennell appealed.
- The Third Circuit agreed most claims accrued between 2011 and 2014 and were time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year limitations period for § 1983 actions; Fennell did not plead facts supporting equitable tolling.
- Fennell asserted one potentially timely access-to-courts claim regarding alleged interference with his in forma pauperis (IFP) filing for a 2015 suit; the District Court found his account statement was filed and that his IFP remained incomplete due to his failure to submit or use the correct forms, with no alleged interference by defendants.
- The Third Circuit granted Fennell’s motion to reopen and IFP application for the appeal but summarily affirmed the District Court’s judgment; it also directed installment payment procedures for appeal fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for § 1983 claims | Fennell maintained claims arising from conduct 2011–2014 are actionable | Defendants argued claims accrued >2 years before filing and are time-barred | Court held most claims accrued 2011–2014 and are barred by the two-year limitations period |
| Relation back / tolling | Implied that amended complaint relates back to original filing or tolling might save claims | Defendants argued even with relation back, claims are untimely and no equitable tolling applies | Court held relation back insufficient and Fennell pleaded no basis for equitable tolling |
| Access-to-courts claim re: IFP filing (2015 suit) | Fennell alleged prison officials misled him about filing his account statement, impairing his IFP filing | Defendants showed account statement was filed and Fennell failed to return required IFP forms; no interference with those forms alleged | Court held the access claim inadequately pleaded; filing system fault was Fennell’s failure to submit correct forms, not defendants’ interference |
| Procedural: appeal filing fee / IFP on appeal | Fennell sought IFP and reopening after appeal dismissal for failure to pay fee | Defendants did not contest reopening/IFP on appeal | Court granted motion to reopen and IFP for appeal but required installment fee payments per court order |
Key Cases Cited
- Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009) (establishes two-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions in Pennsylvania)
- Sameric Corp. v. City of Phila., 142 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 1998) (claims accrue when plaintiff knew or should have known of injury)
- Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2009) (standards for equitable tolling)
- Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603 (3d Cir. 2005) (a complaint dismissed without prejudice generally does not toll the statute of limitations)
- DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard of plenary review for district court orders)
- Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard)
- Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15 (3d Cir. 1976) (authority on granting IFP status)