443 F.Supp.3d 471
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- On March 18, 2015 Daniels, a Black man, was stopped by undercover NYPD officers; they removed him, searched his car, and seized property, then brought him to the precinct.
- At the precinct officers performed a strip search, attempted an anal cavity check, and used force that aggravated a preexisting hand injury.
- Officers charged Daniels with criminal possession of a weapon (allegedly a butterfly knife); he received an ACD on December 14, 2015 and the case was dismissed on June 13, 2016.
- Daniels filed suit in April 2018 and, after amended pleadings, the Second Amended Complaint asserted a § 1983 fair-trial (fabricated-evidence) claim and a failure-to-intervene claim against four officers.
- The central legal question was whether McDonough v. Smith and related precedent bar a fabricated-evidence fair-trial claim when the underlying prosecution ended with an ACD.
- The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss: it held the ACD bars the fair-trial claim and dismissed the derivative failure-to-intervene claim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fabricated-evidence fair-trial claim accrues / is actionable after plaintiff accepted an ACD | Daniels: officers fabricated the knife; his claim may proceed despite the ACD (or timing unclear) | Defendants: McDonough/Heck require a "favorable termination" before such claims; an ACD is not favorable and thus bars the claim | Court: ACD bars the fair-trial fabricated-evidence claim; dismissal granted |
| Failure to intervene (derivative claim) | Daniels: officers failed to stop others from fabricating evidence and using force | Defendants: claim is derivative of fair-trial claim and lacks factual allegations showing other officers had realistic opportunity to intervene | Court: dismissed (with prejudice) as derivative of barred claim and for failure to plead sufficient facts |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019) (fabricated-evidence § 1983 claim requires favorable termination analogous to malicious prosecution)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (civil suit challenging conviction or sentence barred until conviction invalidated)
- Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016) (fabricated-evidence can violate fair-trial right under § 1983)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (legal framework for fabricated-evidence/fair-trial claims)
- Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2002) (ACD not a "favorable termination" for malicious prosecution)
- Rothstein v. Carriere, 373 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2004) (compromised dismissals not favorable terminations)
- Wellner v. City of New York, 393 F. Supp. 3d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (distinguishing outcomes where fabricated evidence affected only dropped charges)
- Manuel v. Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (common-law analogues guide accrual analysis for § 1983 claims)