Jones v. Bombeck, 16188.
Decision Date | 27 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 16188.,16188. |
Citation | 375 F.2d 737 |
Parties | Donald L. JONES, Appellant, v. Stanley BOMBECK, Jr., City Police Officer, City of Sharon, Pennsylvania, William Lavin, City Police Officer, City of Sharon, Pennsylvania, and Joseph Matchak, City Police Officer, City of Sharon, Pennsylvania. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Donald L. Jones, pro se.
E. V. Buckley, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Mercer & Buckley, Pittsburgh, on the brief), for appellees.
Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a civil rights action commenced under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The complaint alleges that the defendants, acting in conspiracy among themselves and with others, induced the plaintiff to commit and participated with him in the commission of a burglary for which he was apprehended and is now serving a sentence.
The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action and that, on its face, it was barred by the statute of limitations. We fully agree with the district court's disposition.
To state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act it is necessary that there be an allegation that plaintiff was denied or that there was a conspiracy to deny him a constitutional right, privilege or immunity. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). Here, at best, all that appellant has alleged is entrapment. While entrapment may be a proper defense in a criminal action, a police officer's participation in such activity does not constitute a constitutional violation.
We also approve the district court's alternative ground for dismissal. In the absence of a congressionally-enacted time limitation for the bringing of such actions, the state statute of limitations should be applied. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Gaito v. Strauss, 249 F.Supp. 923 (W.D.Pa.), aff'd per curiam, 368 F.2d 787 (C.A.3, 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 977, 87 S.Ct. 1173, 18 L.Ed.2d 139 (March 20, 1967); Conard v. Stitzel, 225 F.Supp. 244 (E.D.Pa.1963). Assuming that the Pennsylvania two year statute of limitations applied,1 12 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. § 34, it is clear that this action was filed well beyond the permissible date. We can discern no reason why the statute should be tolled because the appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Sebelius
...in any event,Plaintiff does not indicate why this would have prevented her from filing legitimate Medicare claims. See Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1967) (Entrapment may be a proper defense in a criminal action, but does not entail a constitutional violation). For the reasons exp......
-
Page v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
...arose. O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Hileman v. Knable, 391 F.2d 596 (3 Cir. 1968); Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737 (3 Cir. 1967). * * *" Butler, without discussion, in a § 1983 case based upon an alleged malicious prosecution, accepted unquestioningly ......
-
Cook v. United States, Civ. No. LV 74-140.
...there be an allegation that there was a conspiracy to deny plaintiff a constitutional right, privilege or immunity, Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737, 738 (3rd Cir. 1967), and no claim for relief under § 1986 will lie unless a valid claim has first been established under § 1985. Johnston v. Na......
-
Pinter v. the City of N.Y.
...constitute a constitutional violation.' " DiBlasio v. City of New York, 102 F.3d 654, 657 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Jones v. Bombeck, 375 F.2d 737, 738 (3d Cir.1967) ( per curiam )). 226 See People v. Brown, 82 N.Y.2d 869, 872, 609 N.Y.S.2d 164, 631 N.E.2d 106 (1993). 227 Entrapment is questio......