Gary Klein v. City of Beverly Hills, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14365

Gary Klein's wife died unexpectedly; Beverly Hills Police suspected Klein and obtained three search warrants for his home and computer (first executed Aug. 3, 2009).
No criminal charges were filed after a long investigation.
Klein sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the warrants were obtained by judicial deception (false statements/omissions in affidavits).
The first warrant and its supporting affidavit were sealed; Klein repeatedly sought them from police and unsuccessfully petitioned the state court to unseal (state denial Jan. 12, 2012).
Klein filed this federal suit on Jan. 7, 2013 (about 3.5 years after the Aug. 2009 search); the district court later produced the affidavit in discovery (Mar. 2015) but granted summary judgment for defendants as to timeliness of the Aug. 2009 claim.
The Ninth Circuit held that the discovery rule governs judicial-deception claims and reversed the dismissal of the Aug. 2009 claim as time-barred because Klein had been diligent in pursuing the affidavit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does a judicial-deception (§ 1983) claim accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes?	Accrual should begin when the plaintiff reasonably can access the underlying affidavit showing the deception.	Accrual should occur at the time of the search (like ordinary Fourth Amendment claims).	The discovery rule applies; accrual begins when the underlying affidavit becomes reasonably available.
Was Klein’s claim based on the Aug. 3, 2009 warrant timely given his efforts to obtain the affidavit?	Klein argued he diligently pursued the affidavit (repeated requests, counsel, state petition) and thus the claim is timely.	Defendants contended the claim accrued at the search date, so suit filed in 2013 was untimely.	Court found Klein sufficiently diligent; the claim arising from Aug. 2009 was timely.

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (apply forum state statute of limitations to § 1983 actions)
Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1999) (same principle regarding state limitations)
Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal law governs accrual of civil rights claims)
Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2001) (accrual when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
Bibeau v. Pac. Nw. Research Found., Inc., 188 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 1999) (discovery rule requires plaintiff diligence)
Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) (discovery rule applies generally in federal litigation)
Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2015) (constructive notice for warrantless searches at time of search)
Venegas v. Wagner, 704 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1983) (ordinary Fourth Amendment claims accrue at time of illegal act)
Chism v. Washington, 661 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 2011) (judicial-deception claim differs from garden-variety probable-cause challenge)
Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2011) (judicial-deception focus is officer misleading magistrate about material facts)
United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff must examine underlying affidavit to identify deception)
Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (rejects rule encouraging filing of unripe claims to preserve rights)