Rosa Munchak v. Becky Ruckno
692 F. App'x 100
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Rosa Yap Munchak sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and referenced Title VI and state-law malpractice) for allegedly unnecessary surgery (2004) and chemotherapy (2005–2010) that caused ongoing injuries.
- Defendants were private medical providers and institutions in Pennsylvania (Geisinger Hospital and physicians) and Florida (Moffitt Cancer Center and physicians).
- Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim; district court adopted recommendation and dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile.
- Munchak appealed the sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
- Third Circuit reviewed de novo, accepting pleaded facts as true and construing the complaint liberally, but affirmed dismissal.
- Court held (1) § 1983 claims fail because defendants are private actors and plaintiff made no plausible allegation they acted under color of state law; and (2) federal and state claims are time-barred by applicable personal-injury statutes of limitations, so amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private medical defendants acted under color of state law for § 1983 liability | Munchak alleged the providers’ conduct in performing surgery and treatment violated her civil rights (lack of informed consent, unnecessary procedures) and thus is actionable under § 1983 | Defendants are private actors; receipt of public funds or serving the public does not make them state actors | Held: No § 1983 liability — plaintiff failed to allege conduct fairly attributable to the state (private actors only) |
| Whether claim accrues within statute of limitations so it's timely under § 1983 or Title VI | Implicitly argued claims timely or excusable; also alleged Title VI failure to provide interpreter | Defendants argued applicable state personal-injury statutes of limitations bar claims (PA 2-year; FL 4-year) | Held: Claims time-barred (filed years after treatment); dismissal with prejudice affirmed as amendment would be futile |
| Whether Title VI claim for lack of interpreter is governed by same limitations as § 1983 | Munchak argued denial of interpreter supports Title VI claim | Defendants argued Title VI is subject to state personal-injury limitations like § 1983 | Held: Title VI claim likewise barred by applicable state limitations periods |
| Whether district court erred in sua sponte dismissal under IFP screening statutes | Munchak argued dismissal was improper | District court relied on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(a), finding failure to state a claim and futility of amendment | Held: Third Circuit affirmed sua sponte dismissal; review de novo supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 covers only those who act under color of state law)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (receipt of public funds or serving the public alone does not make a private entity a state actor)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for dismissal under § 1915(e))
- Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989) (§ 1983 actions governed by state personal-injury limitations)
- Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2000) (amendment is futile if the amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss)
- Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1993) (Title VI and § 1983 governed by same statute of limitations)
- Frazier v. Garrison I.S.D., 980 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir. 1993) (state personal-injury limitations determine period for Title VI actions)