Lewis Bond v. Andrew Perley
705 F. App'x 464
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In August 2012 Detective Andrew Perley signed a misdemeanor complaint charging Lewis Bond with domestic battery; the alleged victim did not sign the complaint.
- Bond was arrested, tried in Illinois state court, convicted in 2013, and sentenced to under one year; the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
- In 2016 (more than four years after the arrest) Bond sued Perley and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming unconstitutional arrest, supervisory failure to train, and that the prosecution/conviction were void because the complaint lacked the victim’s signature.
- The district court dismissed Bond’s suit on jurisdictional and other defenses; Bond appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and the § 1983 statute-of-limitations (and absolute immunity for prosecutors) barred the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may review and effectively invalidate state-court conviction | Bond contends the state-court complaint was void (no victim signature), so his conviction is invalid and federal relief is available | Defendants assert Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgments | Held: Rooker–Feldman bars Bond’s attack on the state conviction; only Supreme Court can review state judgments |
| Whether alleged fraud in state litigation prevents Rooker–Feldman application | Bond claims fraud in the state proceedings (to avoid Rooker–Feldman) | Defendants say no fraud exception to Rooker–Feldman | Held: No fraud exception; Rooker–Feldman still applies |
| Whether prosecutor is liable for post- or pretrial conduct | Bond sues prosecutor(s) for the allegedly defective complaint and prosecution | Defendants invoke absolute prosecutorial immunity | Held: Prosecutor claims are barred by absolute immunity |
| Whether Bond’s § 1983 claims for unlawful arrest/prosecution are timely and/or barred by Heck | Bond argues arrest claims are viable despite conviction | Defendants argue claims are Heck-barred or untimely under the two-year § 1983 statute of limitations | Held: Court did not resolve Heck question definitively but held arrest claims are time-barred (accrued at 2012 arrest; suit filed in 2016) |
Key Cases Cited
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (establishes Rooker–Feldman doctrine restricting federal review of state-court judgments)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (foundational Rooker precedent)
- Lennon v. City of Carmel, 865 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2017) (explains when Rooker–Feldman bars federal suit challenging state judgment)
- Iqbal v. Patel, 780 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2015) (rejects a fraud exception to Rooker–Feldman)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (recognizes absolute prosecutorial immunity)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (bars § 1983 claims that would necessarily imply conviction invalidity)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (addresses limits of Heck for released prisoners)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (tolling/accrual rule for false-arrest § 1983 claims)
- Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2011) (applies two-year § 1983 statute-of-limitations)