385 F.2d 491 (3rd Cir. 1967), 16279, Henig v. Odorioso

• Docket Number: 16279.
• Date: 15 November 1967
• Citation: 385 F.2d 491
• Parties: Aileen HENIG, a Minor Together With Ludwig Henig and Geneva M. Henig, Her Parents, Appellants, v. Rocco A. ODORIOSO et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 491

385 F.2d 491 (3rd Cir. 1967)

Aileen HENIG, a Minor Together With Ludwig Henig and Geneva M. Henig, Her Parents, Appellants,

v.

Rocco A. ODORIOSO et al.

No. 16279.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

November 15, 1967

Argued April 7, 1967.

Page 492

Geneva M. Henig, pro se.

John B. Hannum, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee F. W. Woolworth Co.

James H. Agger, Krusen, Evans & Byrne, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Wallingford House, Frank A. Loftus and Virginia Martin.

William R. Toal, Jr., Media, Pa., for appellee Estate of W. R. Toal, Dec'd.

Before McLAUGHLIN and GANEY, Circuit Judges, and NEALON, District Judge.

OPINION

NEALON, District Judge.

Appellants, Ludwig Hening and Geneva M. Henig, filed this Civil Rights action ¹ in the District Court on March 25, 1964, on behalf of themselves and their minor daughter, Aileen Henig, seeking to recover damages arising out of an incident on March 22, 1962, when Aileen Henig was allegedly falsely arrested and imprisoned. The named defendants were (1) the Radnor Township Commissioners and police officials who allegedly were responsible for illegally arresting the girl and falsely accusing her of shoplifting; (2) F. W. Woolworth Company, Inc., and certain named employees who allegedly aided the police in their illegal arrest and search of the minor plaintiff; (3) the Judges and employees of the Delaware County Court, particularly the late Judge Toal by whose order Miss Henig was adjudged a delinquent and incarcerated; (4) the Judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme and Superior Court and certain Court employees, all of whom allegedly refused to grant the relief sought by plaintiffs; (5) the Wallingford Home and its named employees, who allegedly conspired with the Courts in incarcerating the minor plaintiff and who allegedly inflicted cruel and inhuman treatment upon the girl during her period of confinement at that institution. The District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss ² and this appeal followed.

In granting defendants' motions to dismiss, the District Court held that the claims of all plaintiffs were barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitations and, further, even assuming that plaintiffs were not barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitations, their complaints failed to state a cause of action against any of the defendants named therein.

A condensation of the complaint reveals the following:

The minor plaintiff, then eleven years old, was arrested March 22, 1962, in the F. W. Woolworth Company, Inc., store in Wayne, Pennsylvania, by two Radnor Township police officers on suspicion of shoplifting. A search of her person produced three comic books, two pairs of stockings, two flashlight batteries and a pocket comb, having a total value of $2.32, and for which she had no sales slip. A preliminary hearing was held in Delaware County Juvenile Court on March 23, 1962, and a further hearing was scheduled for May 23, 1962, before Judge William R. Toal, now deceased. At the conclusion of the May 23d hearing, the minor was placed in the Juvenile Court

Page 493

Detention Center for fifty-one days, until July 13, 1962, at which time, after hearing, Judge Toal found the minor to be a delinquent and committed her to the Wallingford Home of the Orphans' Society of Philadelphia. ³ The plaintiff's parents appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, ⁴ but its constitutionality was upheld. (Com. v. Henig, 200 Pa.Super. 614, 189 A.2d 894 (1963)). An attempt to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. (Henig v. Pennsylvania, 375 U.S. 908, 84 S.Ct. 201, 11 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963)).

On March 25, 1964, plaintiffs filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court and it was denied the same day. Following unsuccessful appeals to this Court and the United States Supreme Court from the District Court's refusal to allow plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiffs finally forwarded the required filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court on October 22, 1964.

The complaint, prepared by Mrs. Geneva Henig, is a rambling, disjointed, inartful document containing many conclusory statements and, generally, demonstrating an attempt by verbal exaggeration and inflation to portray a situation of aggrievement where none, in fact, exists.

The District Court concluded, and we agree, that a liberal reading of plaintiffs' allegations reveals that they have pleaded the following causes of action: (1) false arrest, (2) false imprisonment, (3) slander, and (4) malicious prosecution.

Since the Civil Rights Act contains no provision limiting the time within which an action thereunder may be brought, the applicable Statute of Limitations is that which the State would enforce had the action seeking similar relief been brought in State Court. Swan v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York, 319 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1963); Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187, 98 A.L.R.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1962); Mohler v. Miller, 235 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1956). Under Pennsylvania law, the Statute of Limitations is one year for false arrest, slander, malicious prosecution and certain actions for false imprisonment. ⁵ In addition, the general Statute of Limitations applicable to all actions to recover...