Smith v. Campbell
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5211
2d Cir.2015Background
- Smith alleges Campbell harassed her starting November 22, 2007, including tailgating in an off-duty car and pressuring at her home.
- Campbell delivered three traffic tickets to Smith on November 26, 2007, shortly after her complaints to the state police.
- Smith and her husband later challenged the tickets; Campbell testified to some improper motives for issuing them.
- Lilly, Smith’s son-in-law, alleges Campbell harassed his in-laws, culminating in close physical proximity and obstructed egress on July 12, 2008.
- Smith filed an amended §1983 complaint in June 2011; the district court dismissed certain claims as time-barred or improperly pleaded.
- Appellate court affirms dismissal of Smith’s retaliatory prosecution claim as time-barred and Lilly’s peaceable assembly/intentional distress claims, but remands Lilly’s unlawful seizure claim for pleading and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual and timeliness of Smith’s retaliatory prosecution claim | Smith argues claim accrued after tickets, not at service. | Campbell contends accrual occurred upon service of tickets, and suit is time-barred. | Accrual on November 26, 2007; time-barred. |
| whether Lilly’s unlawful seizure claim was properly pleaded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Lilly argues Fourth Amendment claim exists via §1983 pleading. | Campbell argues Lilly’s claim was not pleaded under §1983. | Remanded; district court must address pleading sufficiency. |
| waiver of intentional infliction of emotional distress and peaceable assembly claims | Plaintiffs contest dismissal on merits. | Unobjected R&R claims should be considered waived. | Waived; merits not reviewed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual of §1983 claims for false or seized actions; timing governs tolling)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (U.S. 2014) (pleading standards for §1983 claims; perfection in pleading theory not required)
- Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2014) (First Amendment claims need not await favorable criminal termination)
- Mozzochi v. Borden, 959 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir. 1992) (First Amendment retaliation accrual timing guidance)