Monserrate Zapata v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , 530 F. App'x 95 ( 2013 )

BLD-282 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-2072
___________
MONSERRATE M. ZAPATA,
Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; JOHN DOES 1-100;
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2:12-cv-06688)
District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 13, 2013
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 3, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Monserrate Zapata appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint. For the following reasons, we will grant the appellee’s motion and summarily
affirm.
I.
In November 2012, Monserrate Zapata brought a civil action against the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
various state officials. Although difficult to decipher exactly, his complaint seems to
allege a government conspiracy related to his 1971 murder conviction. In particular,
Zapata claimed that (1) the judge who presided over his criminal case improperly acted as
both the arraignment judge and the trial judge, and lacked adequate experience as a
“Homicide Trial Judge”; (2) his twelve-year sentence was inconsistent with the jury’s
verdict; (3) the jury improperly found him guilty of manslaughter, for which he was not
charged in the indictment; and (4) the U.S. Attorney’s Office ignored complaints that he
made in 1973 about these alleged civil rights violations, allowing the state defendants to
“contaminate the federal courts with fraud.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.
Zapata responded, arguing that the limitations period should be tolled because he only
recently penetrated the alleged web of fraud and concealment that the defendants had
weaved around their wrongdoing. The District Court agreed with the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, determining that more than 40 years had passed since the events occurred, and
2
dismissed with prejudice Zapata’s complaint. Zapata timely appealed. The appellee has
filed a motion asking that we summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s grant of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s motion to dismiss. See Gelman
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 2009). To survive
dismissal, Zapata’s complaint needed to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We
may summarily affirm a judgment of the District Court on any basis supported by the
record if the appeal does not raise a substantial question. See I.O.P. 10.6; see also
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Zapata’s allegations are premised on events that occurred in the 1970s. Whether
those allegations were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 1985—as Zapata’s complaint
cites both sections of the statute—he had to file this action within two years from the time
when he “knew or should have known of the injury upon which its action is based.”
Sameric Corp. of Del. v. Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998); see also 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524; Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74, 80 (3d Cir. 1989).
Zapata’s claim against the U.S. Attorney’s Office clearly accrued more than two years
before he filed this action in 2012. As Zapata himself admits, it accrued sometime back
in the 1970s or the 1980s at the latest, after the U.S. Attorney’s Office allegedly refused
3
to respond to the complaint he had filed in 1973 about his criminal proceedings. (Notice
of Appeal at 4.) But rather than filing immediately back then the claims at issue here, he
waited until 2012—far beyond the statute of limitations.
Zapata contended that equitable tolling should save his claims from dismissal
because he only recently learned that the defendants had shrouded their wrongdoing in
fraud and concealment, and he feared for his family’s safety. Indeed, the statute of
limitations may be tolled in cases of fraud or concealment. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
§ 5504(a); Aivazoglou v. Drever Furnaces, 613 A.2d 595, 598 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992); see
also Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539 (1989) (explaining that, like the statute of
limitations, tolling rules in § 1983 actions are taken from the rules of the forum state). As
the District Court correctly determined, however, Zapata’s argument is unavailing. It is
not enough to cryptically claim that the defendants “concealed their wrongdoing” and
that the federal courts may be “bathing in fraud” without support for these allegations.
(Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. at 5.) Moreover, as explained above, it appears that Zapata
knew of the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing back in the 1970s (or the 1980s at the very
latest), but he waited until 2012 to file this action. His apparent lack of diligence further
renders his tolling claim meritless. See New Castle Cnty. v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111
F.3d 1116, 1126 (3d Cir. 1997).
4
For the reasons given, the District Court properly dismissed Zapata’s complaint.1
Accordingly, because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court. Murray, 650 F.3d at 248; see also 3d Cir.
L.A.R.; I.O.P. 10.6.
1
The District Court properly dismissed as time-barred Zapata’s claims against the
Commonwealth and the various state officials. See Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d
1091, 1097 (3d Cir. 2009) (explaining that a District Court may sua sponte dismiss
§ 1983 claims as untimely if “it is clear from the face of the complaint that there are no
meritorious tolling issues . . .”).
5