68 F.4th 123
2d Cir.2023Background:
- On Jan. 21, 2014 Barnes was arrested; officers alleged they saw him sell drugs and recovered a container with 26 bags of crack cocaine from his person.
- Barnes was charged with separate counts: criminal sale and criminal possession; at jury trial he was acquitted of sale and convicted of possession (later sentenced).
- Barnes filed a pro se § 1983 suit (fabricated evidence, malicious prosecution, false arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, failure to intervene, abuse of process, fair-trial/due process, § 1985 conspiracy) and New York state claims; defendants moved under Rule 12(c).
- The district court dismissed all federal claims (many as time-barred; abuse of process for lack of collateral objective; malicious prosecution and fabricated-evidence for failure to show deprivation of liberty caused by sale charge) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of most federal claims but vacated the dismissal of the fabricated-evidence/due-process claim, holding that prosecution based on fabricated evidence can itself constitute a liberty deprivation even without additional custody or conviction; remanded for further proceedings and reconsideration of state claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of arrest-related claims (false arrest, excessive force, search, failure to intervene, §1985) | Barnes: claims arise from Jan. 2014 arrest and are timely | Defs: claims accrued at arrest/charge and are now beyond 3-year limitations | Court: Claims accrued at arrest; dismissed as time-barred |
| Abuse of process | Barnes: false criminal complaint supports abuse-of-process | Defs: no allegation officers had collateral purpose beyond prosecution | Court: Dismissed for failure to allege improper collateral objective |
| Malicious prosecution (sale charge) | Barnes: prosecution based on false officer statements | Defs: termination not favorable because Barnes was convicted of possession | Court: Dismissed — acquittal on sale but conviction on possession means no favorable termination |
| Fabricated-evidence / Due Process (whether prosecution on fabricated sale evidence deprived liberty) | Barnes: officers fabricated sale evidence, forwarded it, and prosecution on that basis deprived him of liberty even without additional custody/conviction | Defs: contemporaneous possession charge produced the same liberty deprivations, so no deprivation traceable to fabricated sale charge | Court: Vacated dismissal — majority holds prosecution based on fabricated evidence can itself be a liberty deprivation and Barnes plausibly pleaded elements; remanded for district court to consider favorable-termination requirement and any further defenses (dissent would have affirmed dismissal) |
| Construing complaint as habeas / amendment request | Barnes: asked district court to treat §1983 filing as also seeking habeas relief | Defs: not addressed below | Court: Remand for district court to consider whether to treat request as motion to amend and whether to allow habeas claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332 (U.S. 2022) (malicious-prosecution standard requires favorable termination)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (U.S. 2019) (favorable-termination requirement for fabricated-evidence claims)
- Ashley v. City of New York, 992 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2021) (elements of fabricated-evidence/fair-trial claim)
- Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016) (fabricated-evidence claim framework; probable-cause not a complete defense to due-process fabrication)
- Frost v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 980 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2020) (fabricated evidence that leads to prosecution can be liberty-depriving even if not used at trial)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (fabricated evidence violates fair-trial rights; liability may attach despite lawful arrest)
- Smalls v. Collins, 10 F.4th 117 (2d Cir. 2021) (fabricated-evidence claim elements and favorable-termination discussion)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (fabrication alone does not implicate liberty; causation requirement explained)