10 F.4th 117
2d Cir.2021Background
- Two consolidated appeals from § 1983 suits alleging police fabrication of evidence: Smalls (E.D.N.Y.) and Daniel (S.D.N.Y.).
- Smalls: convicted on weapon and trespass counts; Appellate Division reversed weapons convictions (suppression), remand led to dismissal of remaining trespass charge; served ~2 years; sued for fabricated evidence; jury awarded damages but district court vacated verdict post-McDonough and entered judgment for defendants.
- Daniel: arrested after alleged abusive stop and false weapon charge; prosecution resolved by an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) and later dismissed and sealed; brought § 1983 and § 1981 claims more than three years after arrest; district court dismissed most claims (including § 1981) and, relying on McDonough and malicious-prosecution analogies, dismissed the fabricated-evidence fair-trial claim.
- Both appeals challenge the district courts' application of McDonough v. Smith: plaintiffs argue McDonough does not require a termination "indicative of innocence," and that their prosecutions terminated in their favor; Daniel also challenges denial of equitable tolling and dismissal of § 1981 counts.
- Second Circuit reversed the dismissals of the fabricated-evidence fair-trial claims, held that McDonough does not import malicious-prosecution’s innocence requirement, concluded Smalls’ and Daniel’s proceedings terminated in their favor for accrual purposes, and affirmed dismissal of Daniel's § 1981 claims and denial of equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does McDonough require a "favorable termination" that is indicative of innocence (i.e., the malicious-prosecution standard) for § 1983 fabricated-evidence fair-trial claims? | McDonough does not import malicious-prosecution's "indicative of innocence" requirement; only that the prosecution end in the defendant's favor or a conviction be invalidated under Heck. | McDonough should be read coextensively with malicious-prosecution, requiring a termination affirmatively indicating innocence. | McDonough does not impose the malicious-prosecution innocence requirement; a more capacious "favorable termination" suffices (end in defendant's favor or conviction invalidated under Heck). |
| Did Smalls’ criminal proceedings terminate in his favor so his fabricated-evidence claim accrued? | Smalls argued his convictions were reversed and remaining charge later dismissed, so no outstanding conviction or prosecution impeded his suit. | Defendants argued reversal/dismissal did not show innocence and thus McDonough barred the claim. | The court held Smalls’ prosecution terminated in his favor (no outstanding conviction or pending prosecution) and his § 1983 claim could proceed; district court erred vacating the jury verdict. |
| Does an ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) constitute a "favorable termination" under McDonough so Daniel's claim accrued? | Daniel argued an ACD followed by dismissal is a favorable termination because charges were ultimately dismissed and there is no outstanding prosecution to be impugned. | Defendants argued an ACD is not indicative of innocence and would bar suit under McDonough if the malicious-prosecution standard applies. | The court concluded an ACD dismissal (charges dismissed and prosecution deemed a nullity) can constitute a favorable termination under McDonough; Daniel's fabricated-evidence claim accrued and is not barred. |
| Were Daniel's other rulings correct: dismissal of § 1981 claims and denial of equitable tolling? | Daniel urged § 1981 provides an independent remedy against state actors and that tolling was warranted (IAB silence, attorney failure, hand injury). | Defendants relied on precedent that § 1983 is the exclusive remedy for § 1981 claims against state actors and that Daniel lacked diligence/causal extraordinary circumstances for tolling. | The court affirmed dismissal of § 1981 claims (Duplan controlling) and affirmed denial of equitable tolling (Daniel failed to show diligence or causation). |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (U.S. 2019) (fabricated-evidence § 1983 claims accrue only once the criminal proceeding ends in the defendant's favor or a conviction is invalidated under Heck)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (§ 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of a conviction do not accrue until conviction is invalidated)
- Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2018) (malicious-prosecution requires termination indicative of innocence)
- Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements of fabricated-evidence fair-trial claim under § 1983)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (due process violated by deliberate fabrication of evidence regardless of probable cause)
- Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2014) (Brady-based fair-trial rights are not conditioned on a showing of innocence)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 2017) (Fourth Amendment may govern pretrial detention claims that follow legal process)
- Frost v. N.Y.C. Police Dep't, 980 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2020) (a fair-trial due process claim can lie for alleged fabrication used during pretrial proceedings)
- Duplan v. City of New York, 888 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2018) (§ 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy against state actors for violations of § 1981)