Kevin Jones v. Mark Frost
770 F.3d 1183
8th Cir.2014Background
- In December 2005, Nona Dirksmeyer was murdered in Russellville, Arkansas; police investigated Kevin Jones (her boyfriend) and Gary Dunn (a neighbor/parolee).
- Officer Mark Frost prepared an investigative report for the state prosecutor noting Jones failed a polygraph and gave conflicting accounts; Frost reported Dunn passed a polygraph and said he was with his mother.
- Jones was charged based in part on Frost’s report and was acquitted by a jury in July 2007; later DNA linked evidence to Dunn, who was tried twice (both mistrials) and then released.
- More than four years after his acquittal, Jones sued the City of Russellville, Officers Frost and Bacon, and Dunn under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and state malicious prosecution law, alleging a conspiracy to frame him and conceal exculpatory/incriminating evidence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants as time-barred; Jones appealed, arguing equitable tolling via fraudulent concealment (specifically, withholding of Frost’s handwritten field notes and other evidence).
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the alleged concealment did not constitute the requisite ‘‘positive act of fraud’’ and Jones could have discovered the notes through reasonable investigation well before filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones’s federal and state claims are barred by the statutes of limitations | Jones argued his claims are timely because equitable tolling (fraudulent concealment) postponed accrual until he discovered withheld evidence | Defendants argued the applicable limitation periods ran before suit and any withheld materials did not constitute fraud that would toll limitations | Held: Claims are time-barred; no actionable fraudulent concealment and Jones could have discovered the evidence earlier |
| Whether withholding Frost’s handwritten field notes amounted to a ‘‘positive act of fraud’’ sufficient to toll limitations | Jones said omission of field notes that undermined Dunn’s alibi was furtive fraud concealing his cause of action | Defendants said the notes did not contradict Frost’s report and withholding them was not furtive fraud | Held: Notes did not show a positive act of fraud; no equitable tolling |
| Whether Jones exercised reasonable diligence to discover the alleged fraud | Jones contended he only learned of the conspiracy after the limitations period | Defendants pointed to testimony that Jones’s investigator had access to typed notes and investigated the alibi as early as Feb–Mar 2008 | Held: Evidence showed Jones could have discovered the facts by reasonable effort before the limitations period expired |
| Whether other evidence (police investigation of Dunn, DNA linking Dunn) tolled or revived Jones’s claims | Jones argued other developments later revealed the conspiracy | Defendants argued those facts were publicly or reasonably discoverable well before suit | Held: Those facts were available by Dec 2007–Mar 2008; tolling would not save the untimely complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) (defines ‘‘positive act of fraud’’ required for equitable tolling/fraudulent concealment)
- Baye v. Diocese of Rapid City, 630 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for review on summary judgment)
- Morton v. City of Little Rock, 934 F.2d 180 (8th Cir. 1991) (Arkansas personal injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 and § 1985 actions)