Kevilly v. New York
410 F. App'x 371
2d Cir.2010Background
- Kevilly, pro se and incarcerated, appeals a 12(b)(6) dismissal of his civil rights complaint in the Second Circuit.
- Claims include false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and other §1983/§1985(3) and RICO theories arising from a 1996 robbery/kidnapping conviction and ongoing detention.
- District Court dismissed as untimely and, alternatively, lacked cognizable §1983 claims under Heck v. Humphrey.
- Kevilly’s state-court direct appeal and federal habeas proceedings had been unsuccessful.
- Kevilly’s claims would imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence and thus are subject to Heck’s accrual rule.
- Court affirms the district court on alternative grounds, noting claims are untimely under the three-year limitations period and that amendments would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Kevilly’s §1983 claims. | Kevilly argues the claims do not require invalidation of his conviction. | Defendants contend Heck bars claims unless conviction/sentence invalidated. | Heck bars the claims seeking the invalidity of conviction. |
| Whether false arrest/imprisonment claims are timely under CPLR. | Kevilly asserts timely filing under applicable law. | Defendants contend the three-year statute applies and expired. | Claims are untimely under the three-year CPLR period. |
| Whether district court properly denied leave to amend or whether amendment would be futile. | Kevilly sought to amend to add new theories of relief. | Defendants argue denial was proper; amendments futile. | Amendment would be futile; some claims barred by Heck or untimely. |
| Whether other pre-1999 claims survive under any theory. | Kevilly asserts some older claims are viable. | Defendants maintain time-bar and Heck defenses apply. | Other pre-1999 claims likewise untimely or barred by Heck. |
Key Cases Cited
- Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility; liberal pro se construction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (liberal construction for pro se pleadings; strong arguments rule)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (claims barred if conviction/sentence not invalidated)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (timeliness of false arrest/false imprisonment claims)
- Okure v. Owens, 816 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1987) (state SOL governs federal §1983 claims; discovery rule not tolling)
- Pollara v. Seymour, 344 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2003) (affirmance on alternative grounds if supported by record)
- Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (leave to amend abuse of discretion; freely given but not if futile)
- Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for amendments)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2007) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) freely grants leave to amend unless futile)
- Ellis v. Chao, 336 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2003) (futility of amended claims)
- Amaker v. Weiner, 179 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 1999) ( Heck-related considerations)