PEELE v. MCLAUGHLIN et al

Filing 6

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
CIVIL ACTION

TYRONE PEELE
WE THE PEOPLE ( IN REM )

/::1. rr:
t

v .

Dc1
NO . 15-3804

CAITLIN MCLAUGHLIN , et al.

OCTOBER

) ,_
'"0!5

MICH, ,

By

~f"- l:

I

•

'

-

----.:....1.;,v~
0, '~'/erk

ME M 0 RAN DU M
PRATTER , J .

rI

ep.Cterk

/.d',

2015

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.
O. S.C.

§

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
O.S.C.

§

1915 (e) (2) (B) (i) .
I.

DISCUSSION

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.

§

5524.

See

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.

658

Monell v . Department of Social

(1978).

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.
a

§

1983 action.

It may not be included in

Freiser v . Rodriguez , 411 U. S . 475 (1973) .

II . CONCLUSION
Mr.
theory. "

Peele has advanced an " indisputab l y meritless legal

Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U. S . 319 , 327

(1989).

Accordingly , dismissal of this amended complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S . C .

§

1915(e) (2) (B) (i)

is appropriate .