Myers v. Koopman
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25357
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Detective Brian Koopman allegedly fabricated facts in affidavits to obtain a search warrant and then an arrest warrant for Jeremy Myers; property and a lab were searched and a substance initially field-tested as methamphetamine.
- Myers surrendered on September 7, 2007 pursuant to a warrant and remained in custody until he bonded out on September 10; additional testing later showed the seized material was not a controlled substance and charges were dropped on November 15, 2007.
- Myers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (malicious prosecution and due process) after removing the action to federal court; complaint filed November 5, 2009.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for Koopman, dismissing the Fourteenth Amendment claim (adequate state remedy) and dismissing the Fourth Amendment claim as time-barred by treating it as false imprisonment.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, accepted Myers’ factual allegations as true for pleading-stage review, and evaluated accrual rules and analogy to common-law torts to determine timeliness and proper claim characterization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Myers’ Fourteenth Amendment due-process malicious-prosecution claim survives given state remedies | Myers contends § 1983 due process claim is viable despite state remedy; alternatively argues state remedy is now time-barred | Koopman argues Colorado provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy (malicious-prosecution tort) so no Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim | Affirmed: Fourteenth Amendment claim dismissed because Colorado law provides an adequate remedy and Myers’ unused remedy does not render it inadequate |
| Whether Myers’ Fourth Amendment claim was mislabeled and time-barred because it accrued as false imprisonment | Myers maintains his Fourth Amendment claim is properly malicious prosecution because detention followed issuance of a warrant and proceedings later terminated in his favor | Koopman contends the claim should be treated as false imprisonment and thus accrued at release, making it untimely | Reversed: Claim is properly pleaded as malicious prosecution (detention followed institution of legal process); accrual is at favorable termination (Nov. 15, 2007), so Myers’ Nov. 5, 2009 complaint was timely |
| Whether the district court applied correct accrual rule for § 1983 Fourth Amendment claims | Myers argues accrual follows common-law malicious-prosecution rules when detention is after legal process | Koopman argues accrual should trigger earlier (at institution of process or release) | Court held Wilkins and controlling Supreme Court precedent require malicious-prosecution accrual upon favorable termination, not at issuance of warrant |
| Whether appellate court may resolve Koopman’s immunity defenses on appeal | N/A (plaintiff’s position not applicable) | Koopman raised absolute and qualified immunity in cross-appeal | Dismissed cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction; immunity arguments remanded for district court to address in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes v. Wyo. Dep't of Transp., 302 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2002) (pleading-stage factual allegations accepted as true on judgment-on-the-pleadings)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (false-imprisonment accrual rule; accrual when imprisonment ends)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (malicious-prosecution accrual requires favorable termination)
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (detention after institution of legal process supports § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim)
- Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2007) (post-deprivation state tort remedies can satisfy Fourteenth Amendment due-process requirements)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (post-deprivation remedies satisfy procedural due process where pre-deprivation protections are not feasible)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Mondragon v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2008) (malicious-prosecution claim accrual follows favorable termination rule)