John Brookins v. Bristol Township Police Depart, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 5. DLD-121.

Case: 15-2632

Document: 003112217482

Page: 1

DLD-121

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-2632
___________
JOHN DAVID BROOKINS,
Appellant
v.
BRISTOL TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT;
ALFRED H. EASTLACK; RUDOLPH RUDY HEIERLING;
THOMAS MILLS; BUCKS COUNTY DETECTIVES OFFICE;
ROBERT C. POTTS; DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUCKS COUNTY;
DIANE E. GIBBONS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-cv-00252)
District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis
____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 28, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 25, 2016)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2632

Document: 003112217482

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

Pro se appellant John Brookins appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229
F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
In 1992, Brookins was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of first-degree
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2014, he instituted an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court. He alleged, essentially, that the police officers and
district attorneys involved in his case had ignored evidence that inculpated a different
suspect and instead prosecuted him despite his innocence. Although he does little to
identify discrete causes of action, construing his allegations generously, we understand
him to present claims of false arrest, use of excessive force during arrest and
interrogation, malicious prosecution, a violation of his rights under Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), and a due-process violation. He also purported to raise a state-law
claim of obstruction of justice under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5101. He requested a variety of
declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders requiring the police to investigate his
suggested suspect and to test a pair of gloves for DNA.
The District Court dismissed Brookins’s action, concluding that his federal claims
were time-barred and that no civil cause of action exists under Pennsylvania for
obstruction of justice. Brookins filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
2

Case: 15-2632

Document: 003112217482

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

We agree with the District Court’s disposition of this case.1 Brookins has not
claimed that his state conviction has been set aside.2 Therefore, his claims are barred to
the extent that success on the merits would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). This includes his claims alleging malicious prosecution,
see Heck, 512 U.S. at 484-85; Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 186-87 (3d Cir. 2009)
(en banc), and a Brady violation, see Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536 (2011);
Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 1999).3 We note, however, that these claims
are properly dismissed without prejudice, and we modify the District Court’s order
accordingly. See, e.g., Fottler v. United States, 73 F.3d 1064, 1065-66 (10th Cir. 1996).
Brookins’s remaining claims — that the defendants falsely arrested him, used
excessive force against him, and violated his due-process rights by refusing to test
evidence for DNA — are not barred by Heck. See Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d
120, 126 n.5 (3d Cir. 1998) (false arrest); Lora-Pena v. FBI, 529 F.3d 503, 506 (3d Cir.

1

We may affirm on any ground apparent in the record. See, e.g., Hughes v. Long, 242
F.3d 121, 122 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001).
2

Brookins has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the District Court, which
remains pending. See E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 2:14-cv-2645.
3

In connection with these claims, Brookins asked for an order requiring the police to
investigate the individual that he believes committed the murder. However, “[t]here is no
statutory or common law right, much less a constitutional right, to an investigation.”
Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Capogrosso v. Supreme
3

Case: 15-2632

Document: 003112217482

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

2008) (excessive force during arrest); Jackson v. Suffolk Cty. Homicide Bureau, 135 F.3d
254, 257 (2d Cir. 1998) (excessive force after arrest); Skinner, 562 U.S. at 534 (DNA
testing). They are, however, untimely. In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for
claims under § 1983 is two years. See Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009).
Brookins’s false-imprisonment claim accrued when he became held pursuant to legal
process, see Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389-90 (2007), which occurred in 1991. His
claims concerning the officers’ use of force accrued when he (allegedly) suffered his
injuries in 1991. See Kach, 589 F.3d at 634-35; Montgomery, 159 F.3d at 126. Finally,
his challenge to the Government’s failure to test evidence for DNA accrued, at the latest,
when the state court denied his request for testing on April 28, 2011. See Savory v.
Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2006). He filed his complaint in this case in
January 2014, well after the expiration of the two-year limitations period for each of
these claims. He has offered no basis to toll the statute of limitations as to any of these
claims, and the District Court therefore properly concluded that they were untimely.
Finally, the District Court correctly ruled that Brookins is not entitled to maintain
a civil claim under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5101, Pennsylvania’s criminal obstruction-of-

Court of N.J., 588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2009) (“individual citizens do not have a
constitutional right to the prosecution of alleged criminals”).
4

Case: 15-2632

Document: 003112217482

Page: 5

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

justice statute. See D’Errico v. DeFazio, 763 A.2d 424, 430 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000);
Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A.2d 1337, 1342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987).4
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Given the legal failings of Brookins’s complaint, we are satisfied that amendment to the
complaint would be futile, and therefore conclude that the District Court properly
dismissed the complaint without providing leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
4

5