62 F. Supp. 3d 185
D. Mass.2015Background
- Plaintiff Aristides Cardoso brought § 1983 and common-law claims arising from an arrest and prosecution; most claims were previously dismissed except two against Officer Robert Grayson: a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim and a malicious prosecution claim.
- The court expressed concern that Cardoso could not show a favorable termination of the underlying criminal proceeding because the state court had imposed pretrial probation from March 18, 2010 to December 17, 2010.
- Defendants later submitted an attested record showing Cardoso was placed on pretrial probation, fined $150, the probation ended on December 17, 2010, and the criminal case was thereafter dismissed.
- The court held that pretrial probation is not a "favorable" termination for purposes of malicious prosecution or § 1983 claims challenging validity of conviction or imprisonment; it is a court-supervised compromise that imposes judicially supervised limitations.
- Under Heck v. Humphrey, a § 1983 claim that would invalidate a conviction/sentence is barred unless the conviction/sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal habeas writ.
- Because Cardoso’s disposition was pretrial probation (a non-favorable termination), the court dismissed the claims against Grayson and, derivatively, the claims against supervisors and the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cardoso obtained a "favorable termination" of the underlying proceedings sufficient to support malicious prosecution/§ 1983 claims | Cardoso contends the ultimate dismissal of his case permits pursuit of his civil claims | Defendants contend pretrial probation is not a favorable termination and thus bars the claims | Court held pretrial probation is not a favorable termination; claims dismissed |
| Whether Heck doctrine bars Cardoso’s § 1983 false arrest claim | Cardoso argues the dismissal permits his § 1983 claim | Defendants argue Heck bars collateral attack because the disposition was not invalidated by appeal/expungement/habeas | Court applied Heck and found the claim barred |
| Whether supervisors and the City are liable if officer's claims fail | Cardoso seeks derivative liability from supervisors/City | Defendants argue supervisory/municipal claims fail if officer prevails | Court dismissed supervisory/municipal claims as derivative of the officer’s dismissed claims |
| Whether pretrial diversion/probation counts as a conviction-equivalent for § 1983 purposes | Cardoso implies dismissal equals favorable outcome | Defendants argue diversion/probation is a court-supervised compromise and unfavorable | Court adopted that view; probation is unfavorable and precludes suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (discusses effect of pretrial dispositions on § 1983/malicious prosecution elements)
- Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) (pretrial probation is a court-supervised compromise and not a favorable termination)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (§ 1983 claim that would invalidate a conviction/sentence is barred unless conviction/sentence has been invalidated)
- Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1994) (pretrial diversion orders are not favorable terminations for malicious prosecution claims)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1986) (dismissal of officer’s claim precludes supervisor/municipal liability derivative on same facts)