Rosado v. Gonzalez, 832 F.3d 714

On Sept. 7, 2012, Chicago officers stopped Mark Rosado for an alleged turn-signal violation, claimed to see a badge/handcuffs and a handgun in plain view, and arrested him for being a felon in possession and as an armed habitual criminal.
Officer Kero approved the report; Rosado was bound over for trial after a probable-cause hearing on Sept. 8, 2012.
Rosado spent ~18 months jailed fighting the charges; in Feb. 2014 he obtained dash-cam footage showing his turn signal worked and undermining the officers’ account.
The state court quashed the arrest and suppressed evidence based on the video; the state dismissed the case nolle prosequi on Apr. 14, 2014.
Rosado filed a § 1983 suit on Apr. 28, 2015 asserting false arrest, conspiracy, failure to intervene, due process, and respondeat superior.
The district court dismissed the false-arrest, conspiracy, and failure-to-intervene claims as time-barred (statute expired Sept. 8, 2014); Rosado appealed only those dismissals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the § 1983 false-arrest claim accrue?	Accrual should be later because dash-cam evidence was withheld; claim not yet actionable until disclosure.	Accrual occurred when Rosado was bound over for trial (Sept. 8, 2012).	Accrual occurred at binding over; statute ran Sept. 8, 2014, complaint filed Apr. 28, 2015 — time-barred.
Equitable estoppel to excuse late filing	Officers deliberately withheld the dash-cam to prevent timely suit, so estoppel should apply.	No facts show defendants’ conduct actually prevented suit; Rosado had the video by Feb. 2014 and seven months to file.	Denied — plaintiff failed to show defendant misconduct caused him to miss the limitations period.
Equitable tolling under Illinois law	Withholding evidence and imprisonment justify tolling until Rosado could learn of fabrication.	Even after receiving the video in Feb. 2014, Rosado waited ~7 months without filing; no extraordinary prevention or due diligence shown.	Denied — Rosado did not promptly file after the impediment ended, so tolling not available.
Status of derivative claims (conspiracy; failure to intervene)	These claims proceed independently as conspiratorial or supervisory harms.	Both derive from the false-arrest claim and are therefore time-barred if the underlying claim is time-barred.	Denied — conspiracy and failure-to-intervene claims are time-barred as they rest on the barred false-arrest claim.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (statute of limitations for false arrest accrues when bound over for trial)
Small v. Chao, 398 F.3d 894 (12(b)(6) dismissal appropriate when claim is indisputably time-barred)
Shropshear v. Corp. Counsel of Chicago, 275 F.3d 593 (equitable estoppel requires defendant’s affirmative steps preventing suit)
Flight Attendants Against UAL Offset v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 165 F.3d 572 (estoppel requires causation between defendant misconduct and failure to sue)
Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459 (equitable tolling requires prompt filing once impediment ends)
Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446 (no tolling when claimant had substantial time remaining to sue)
Scherer v. Balkema, 840 F.2d 437 (civil conspiracy cannot revive otherwise time-barred overt acts)
Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052 (failure-to-intervene claim requires an underlying constitutional violation)