PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed a trial court ruling which designated as time-barred injury claims made by a Pittsburgh man against the police officers responsible for his 2012 arrest.
Plaintiff Antwaun Bush’s appeal came before Third Circuit judges Theodore A. McKee, Thomas L. Ambro and Jane R. Roth, with Roth authoring the opinion for the court released on June 11.
“On Jan. 30, 2014, Bush initiated an action in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas by filing a praecipe for a Writ of Summons for injuries incurred during his arrest nearly two years earlier. He named the City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh’s former chief of police, and several police officers as defendants,” Roth said.
“He did not file a complaint or a statement of intention to proceed. Roughly two and a half years later and approximately four and a half years after the events that gave rise to his causes of action, Bush initiated a separate action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding the same events and against the same defendants, alleging both state tort claims and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.”
Subsequently, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that Bush’s claims were time-barred, which led Bush to appeal to the Third Circuit.
In analyzing the case, Roth first set to determine the statute of limitations involved. In Pennsylvania, where Bush’s Section 1983 claims arose, Roth explained the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years.
Using this metric, Bush’s causes of action accrued on Feb. 15, 2012, the date of his arrest. However, he filed his complaint in District Court on June 22, 2016, approximately two and a half years after the statute of limitation for his claims had expired.
Bush argued, however, that the statute of limitations for his claims brought in federal court was tolled as of Jan. 30, 2014, when he filed a praecipe for a Writ of Summons in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.
“Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1007, filing a praecipe constitutes the commencement of a civil action. Once a plaintiff has filed a praecipe for a Writ of Summons, Pennsylvania law permits a defendant to request the prothonotary to order the plaintiff to file her complaint,” Roth said.
“Forgoing this opportunity forecloses the defendant’s ability to bring a statute of limitations defense. The rationale for this is simple: By not taking advantage of the opportunity to compel the plaintiff to timely bring a complaint, the defendant signals that he is unconcerned about the timeliness of that complaint.”
Therefore, if a defendant has been timely served a praecipe for a Writ of Summons in the state court in which the plaintiff ultimately brings their complaint, the statute of limitations is tolled and the plaintiff can file their complaint past the statutory period.
Roth stated Bush wants to extend this rule to cases like the instant one, where the plaintiff, after filing and serving a praecipe for a Writ of Summons in state court, filed suit in federal court past the relevant statute of limitations period.
“We decline to do so. Pennsylvania and federal law distinguish between actions commenced in state court and federal court for the purpose of tolling. The tolling of a claim by virtue of its initiation in state court does not transfer to claims subsequently brought in federal court,” Roth said.
“Thus, initiating a suit in state court by filing a praecipe for Writ of Summons does not toll a separate action in federal court irrespective of the similarity of the claims. Had Bush filed his complaint in state court, it would not be time-barred – but he did not do so. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 19-1009
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:16-cv-00926
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com