906 F.3d 352
5th Cir.2018Background
- Brandon Moon was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 1988 and spent ~17 years in prison before DNA testing in 2004 conclusively excluded him and secured his release.
- Earlier DNA testing (post-conviction and in 1996) indicated exclusionary results but were inconclusive without victim/family reference samples; some results were not disclosed to Moon or the court.
- A district clerk “checkout” document showing defense access to evidence was misplaced (but later found), and the State relied on chain-of-custody arguments in Moon’s 1996 pro se habeas proceeding.
- Moon sued in 2006 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process/access-to-courts) against county officials and an assistant district attorney (Davis), and brought a pendent Texas tort claim for false imprisonment against city defendants.
- The district court dismissed all claims; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed (1) whether false imprisonment is a continuing tort under Texas law, (2) whether Moon’s § 1983 claim against county defendants was time‑barred, and (3) whether Davis is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether false imprisonment accrues at confinement or release under Texas law | Moon: false imprisonment is a continuing tort that accrues upon release (so 2006 suit is timely) | City: claim accrued at initial imprisonment in 1988, making suit untimely | False imprisonment is a continuing tort; accrual upon release; Moon’s state claim timely |
| Whether § 1983 access-to-courts claim against county clerk is timely | Moon: clerk’s disorganization delayed post-conviction relief; claim accrues when injury discovered (later) | County: injury was known by 1996 (loss of checkout sheet); federal accrual governs, so claim is time‑barred | Federal accrual applies; plaintiff knew of injury by 1996; claim time‑barred |
| Whether Texas tolling doctrines save Moon’s access claim | Moon: tolling or equitable doctrines apply | County: no applicable tolling; plaintiff had reason to know; no fraudulent concealment shown | No tolling applies; limitations expired |
| Whether prosecutor Davis has absolute immunity for his habeas-stage conduct | Moon: Davis’s chain-of-custody argument and nondisclosure of 1996 DNA violated due process and are not protected | Davis: actions were prosecutorial advocacy in post-conviction proceedings; immunity applies | Prosecutorial absolute immunity applies to Davis’s advocacy and decision not to pursue/disclose the inconclusive 1996 test |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (prosecutorial immunity may extend to supervisory decisions involving legal judgment)
- Dist. Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (no freestanding constitutional right to obtain state post-conviction DNA testing beyond state-created procedures)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal accrual rule: claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Rincones, 520 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2017) (Texas accrual principles and recognition that continuing-tort doctrine may apply)