Julian v. Hanna
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21455
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2001 Frankton High School was set on fire; police officers investigated and identified Billy Julian as a suspect based on fabricated witness statements.
- An information charged Julian with arson, burglary, and attempted theft; he was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to 15 years; conviction later reversed on appeal and post-conviction relief obtained after demonstrating key witness was at home under electronic monitoring.
- State retrial was scheduled multiple times, ultimately charges were dismissed in July 2010; Julian was released in 2006 and filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in November 2011.
- Julian sued officers, the Town of Frankton (employer), and the county sheriff for malicious prosecution under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and for a Brady violation (withholding exculpatory evidence).
- District court dismissed with prejudice as time-barred and because Indiana law allegedly provided adequate remedies; Seventh Circuit reversed as to timeliness and adequacy and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual/timeliness of malicious prosecution claim | Claim accrues when criminal proceedings terminate in plaintiff's favor (i.e., dismissal July 2010); suit filed within two-year Indiana statute | Claim accrued at reversal of conviction (much earlier), so suit is time-barred | Accrual occurs when criminal proceedings end favorably (dismissal); claim timely |
| Availability of §1983 malicious prosecution remedy | Federal due-process §1983 claim available because Indiana grants absolute immunity to state officers, leaving no adequate state remedy | Indiana common-law torts (false arrest/imprisonment) or other state remedies are adequate alternatives; state immunity suffices | Indiana remedies (false arrest/imprisonment) are inadequate substitutes for full malicious prosecution relief; §1983 permitted |
| Preclusive effect of Indiana absolute immunity for state officers | Absolute immunity for state officers deprives plaintiffs of adequate state remedy, so federal relief remains available | Legislative grant of immunity satisfies due process and bars federal claim | Court rejects notion that state legislature can eliminate federal remedy by statutory immunity |
| Statute of limitations on Brady claim / equitable estoppel | Defendants intimidated/deterred Julian from filing; equitable estoppel should toll limitations until charges dismissed (July 2010) | Brady claim accrued earlier (upon new trial order in Sept 2007) and is time-barred | Court remands to district court to address equitable-estoppel tolling of Brady claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (malicious-prosecution §1983 claim requires criminal proceeding ended in plaintiff’s favor)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (due-process claim precluded where state provides adequate post-deprivation remedy)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (plurality/concurrence relevant to scope of federal malicious-prosecution claims)
- Belcher v. Norton, 497 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2007) (Indiana immunity deprives plaintiffs of adequate state remedy for due-process claims)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (distinguishing false-arrest/false-imprisonment accrual from malicious-prosecution accrual)
- Julian v. State, 811 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. App. 2004) (state appellate decision affirming conviction before reversal/post-conviction relief)