PEELE v. MCLAUGHLIN et al
MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 10/1/15. 10/1/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PLFF. AND 1 COPY TO LEGAL BIN.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WE THE PEOPLE ( IN REM )
NO . 15-3804
CAITLIN MCLAUGHLIN , et al.
ME M 0 RAN DU M
PRATTER , J .
Mr. Peele was given leave to file an amended complaint
by Order dated July 13, 2015 (Document No . 2).
He has submitted
his amended complaint (Document No . 4) against his probation
officer and the City and County of Philadelphia.
In his 42
1983 amended complaint , he is alleging that his
probation officer filed a false report with the Philadelphia
Police Department in October of 2011 of Mr. Peele having
intimidated a witness.
In his prayer for relief , he is seeking
money damages and immediate release from incarceration .
For the following reasons , Plaintiff ' s amended
complaint will be dismissed as legal l y frivolous pursuant to 28
1915 (e) (2) (B) (i) .
The Supreme Court has held that civil rights claims are
most analogous to common law tort actions , and are subject to the
state statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
Owens v. Okure , 488 U. S. 235 (1989).
The Pennsylvania statute of
limitations on a personal injury action is two years.
Cons. Stat. Ann.
See 42 Pa.
Mr. Peele alleges that Caitlin
McLaughlin , his probation officer, filed a false report with the
Philadelphia Police Department on October 11 , 2011 , in which she
al l eged that Mr. Peele had intimidated a witness .
civil action on July 7 , 2015 .
He filed this
Therefore , he is now time - barred
from bringing this claim against Ms . McLaughlin .
Mr . Peele ' s claims against the City and County of
Philadelphia will also be dismissed .
Municipal liability cannot
be imposed absent an allegation that unlawful actions were taken
pursuant to a municipality ' s policies , practices, customs ,
regulations or enactments .
Services , 436 U.S.
Monell v . Department of Social
There are no such allegations in
this amended complaint.
Finally, Mr. Peele is requesting immediate release from
incarceration , which is a request that may only be brought in a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
It may not be included in
Freiser v . Rodriguez , 411 U. S . 475 (1973) .
II . CONCLUSION
Peele has advanced an " indisputab l y meritless legal
Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U. S . 319 , 327
Accordingly , dismissal of this amended complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S . C .
1915(e) (2) (B) (i)
is appropriate .
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?