L.H. Wagner v. Allegheny County ADA C.H. Connors
683 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Lee H. Wagner (pro se, inmate) sued Allegheny County ADA Christopher H. Connors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution and related constitutional violations based on prosecutorial conduct at Wagner's criminal trial.
- Wagner alleged the prosecutor hid or failed to present impeachment and hospital testimony, allowed false testimony, and prosecuted despite key evidence being inadmissible, and sought $1.1 million and declaratory relief.
- Wagner had been tried, convicted of aggravated indecent assault (and indecent assault), and sentenced on May 12, 1997; his conviction and sentence were not invalidated on appeal or collateral review.
- The trial court dismissed Wagner's complaint as frivolous under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j), finding the suit barred by the statute of limitations, and denied his petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's order but did so on different grounds: it held Wagner's § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success would necessarily imply invalidity of his unvacated conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / continuing-wrong doctrine | Wagner argued a continuing-wrong made his claim timely | Connors (and court) treated the claim as subject to ordinary limitations based on end of prosecution | Court did not decide statute of limitations; affirmed on other grounds (Heck) |
| Malicious prosecution merits | Wagner: prosecutor knowingly used/allowed false testimony and suppressed impeaching evidence, meeting malicious-prosecution and due-process standards | Connors: (implicit) actions alleged do not support a viable § 1983 claim given procedural bars and immunity defenses | Court: merits not reached because § 1983 suit is barred by Heck doctrine absent invalidation of conviction |
| § 1983 viability given conviction | Wagner contended constitutional violations occurred during prosecution and may be litigated in § 1983 | Connors: success would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction and is barred by Heck v. Humphrey | Held: Claim barred by Heck; plaintiff must first obtain favorable termination of conviction to pursue § 1983 damages challenging the conviction |
| IFP dismissal as frivolous (Rule 240(j)) | Wagner sought IFP and argued complaint was valid | Trial court dismissed complaint as frivolous under Rule 240(j) (statute-of-limitations rationale) | Commonwealth Court affirmed the dismissal, but on Heck grounds (affirmed on other grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim that would imply invalidity of a conviction is barred unless conviction has been invalidated)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutor's duty is to seek justice; misconduct can violate defendant's rights)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (relief barred where success would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction; clarifies § 1983/collateral-attack limits)
- Drake v. Portuondo, 553 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2009) (discusses prosecutorial obligations and impeachment evidence issues)
- United States v. Mason, 293 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2002) (addresses admissibility and impeachment concerns in prosecution)