McDonough v. Smith
898 F.3d 259
2d Cir.2018Background
- McDonough, a Rensselaer County Elections Commissioner, was indicted after alleged forged absentee-ballot applications were submitted to him; he approved them but maintained he did not know they were falsified.
- A Special District Attorney, Youel Smith, was appointed to investigate and prosecute after the elected DA was disqualified; Smith prosecuted McDonough at two trials, the second ending in acquittal on December 21, 2012.
- McDonough alleges Smith fabricated evidence (forged affidavits, false testimony, flawed DNA methods) and presented it to a grand jury and at trials, depriving him of due process.
- On December 18, 2015 McDonough sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) a due process claim based on fabrication of evidence and (2) malicious prosecution.
- The district court dismissed the due process claim as time-barred under New York’s three-year statute of limitations and dismissed the malicious prosecution claim against Smith on absolute prosecutorial immunity grounds; those dismissals as to Smith were certified for interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence due-process claim accrue? | McDonough: accrual is like malicious prosecution; accrues only after favorable termination (acquittal). | Defendants: accrual occurs when plaintiff knows fabricated evidence was used against him and he suffered liberty deprivation. | Accrues when plaintiff knows of the fabrication and it was used to deprive liberty (arrest/trial); here accrual occurred no later than first trial, so claim untimely. |
| Does Heck v. Humphrey delay accrual here? | McDonough: Heck requires waiting until criminal proceedings terminate favorably. | Defendants: Heck inapplicable where no outstanding conviction; Wallace forecloses delaying accrual. | Heck does not delay accrual because there was no conviction to invalidate; Wallace controls. |
| Is ongoing prosecution a "continuing violation" that tolls accrual until acquittal? | McDonough: wrongful prosecution continued until acquittal so tolling applies. | Defendants: separate wrongful acts do not merge to delay accrual; awareness of fabricated evidence triggers accrual. | No continuing-violation tolling; accrual is not postponed by continued prosecution. |
| Is Smith entitled to absolute immunity for malicious prosecution? | McDonough: some alleged investigatory acts by Smith might negate absolute immunity. | Smith: malicious prosecution is a prosecutorial function and is absolutely immune. | Smith has absolute immunity for malicious prosecution claims arising from his prosecutorial/advocacy role. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (fabrication-of-evidence violates due process; harm occurs when fabricated evidence is used to deprive liberty)
- Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722 (2d Cir. 1994) (fabrication claim accrues when plaintiff knows of tainted evidence and suffers injury)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (false-arrest claim accrues at arrest; Heck does not delay accrual absent an outstanding conviction)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule for claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (use of fabricated evidence corrupts truth-seeking function; malicious prosecution elements)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (malicious prosecution under § 1983 requires favorable termination)
- Shmueli v. New York, 424 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishing prosecutorial absolute immunity for advocacy vs. investigatory acts)