Brandon Price v. Associated Press

── Brandon Price v. Associated Press ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-3391 __________ BRANDON PRICE, Appellant v. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00648) District Judge: Honorable Marilyn J. Horan ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 14, 2026 Before: MATEY, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 24, 2026) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Brandon Price, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania’s (“the District * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Court’s”) order dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. In May 2025, Price invoked the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and sought to sue the Associated Press (“AP”) for defamation under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(2). 1 Specifically, Price claims that the AP published a story on October 22, 2013, claiming that “‘Plaintiff has been sentenced to eight months in federal prison,’ when in fact Plaintiff’s October 22, 2013 sentence was to a community halfway house.” ECF No. 7 at 1. After granting Price IFP status, a Magistrate Judge screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and recommended that the Complaint be dismissed as time-barred for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After Price filed, and the District Court considered, Objections to the Report and Recommendation, the District Court agreed that the defamation claim is time-barred, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) with prejudice. Price appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a dismissal de novo pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), see Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 1 He alleged complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy that was not to a legal certainty below the threshold for diversity jurisdiction. See generally Oldham v. Pa. State Univ., 138 F.4th 731, 741 n.2 (3d Cir. 2025). 2 2000), and review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, see In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). In Pennsylvania, claims for defamation or libel are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5523(1). Pennsylvania has adopted the “single publication rule,” which clarifies that a cause of action arises from “the original printing of the defamatory material and not the circulation of it.” In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 690 F.3d 161, 175 (3d Cir. 2012). Here, because the cause of action accrued on October 22, 2013, the date the AP published the wire story, Price had until October 22, 2014, to file his action within the limitations period. Price filed the instant action in May 2025, more than a decade aft