Serino v. Hensley
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22382
7th Cir.2013Background
- In September 2008, Oakland City Chief of Police Hensley arrested Serino for trespass and resisting law enforcement; charges were later dismissed.
- In March 2012, Serino sued Hensley and Oakland City in federal court alleging §1983 violations and Indiana torts.
- The district court dismissed all claims at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, finding false arrest claims time-barred and counting immunities against malicious prosecution and IIED.
- Serino had been suspended from Oakland City University in 2008; Hensley confronted him at the Tichenor Athletic Center and arrested him for trespass.
- Arraignment occurred September 15, 2008; the state later dismissed the trespass and resisting charges on April 3, 2009 and March 31, 2010.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 and state false arrest claims are time-barred | Serino argues accrual delayed under Heck/Wallace principles | Accrual occurred at arrest; two-year limit expired by Sept. 15, 2010 | Both §1983 and state false arrest claims time-barred |
| Whether §1983 malicious prosecution is cognizable and independent of false arrest | Serino claims a constitutional due process theory or federal malicious-prosecution theory | No independent due-process or cognizable §1983 malicious-prosecution claim; claims fail | Malicious-prosecution claim under §1983 dismissed for lack of independent constitutional violation |
| Whether Indiana ITCA immunity bars state-law malicious prosecution and IIED claims | Immunity does not bar, given lack of underlying constitutional claim | ITCA immunity bars these state-law claims when brought against government actors | State-law malicious-prosecution and IIED claims barred by ITCA immunity |
| Whether respondeat superior theory sustains city liability when underlying claims are barred | City may be liable for Hensley's conduct | No underlying claims against Hensley remain; respondeat superior claims fall away | Respondeat superior claims against the city fall away; no underlying basis remaining |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (false arrest accrual based on detention under legal process)
- Hondo, Inc. v. Sterling, 21 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 1994) (state-substantive limitations for § 1983 actions; accrual rule)
- City of Elkhart, 614 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2011) (application of Wallace accrual rule to false arrest claims)
- Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2001) (due process/adequacy of state remedies; malicious-prosecution framing)
- Julian v. Hanna, 732 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (Indiana ITCA immunity for malicious-prosecution claims)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (discussion of due process vs. Fourth Amendment in malicious prosecution context)
- Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 1996) (mislabeling Fourth Amendment false arrest as due process claim)