Spak v. Phillips
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8866
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2010, Plainville officer Shane Phillips observed Paul Spak burning firework remnants and sought an arrest warrant alleging destruction of evidence; Spak was arrested June 24, 2010.
- On September 10, 2010, the prosecuting attorney entered a nolle prosequi and did not reinitiate charges.
- Connecticut law requires erasure of police and court records relating to a nolled prosecution within 13 months if no new prosecution is commenced.
- Spak sued Phillips under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution (Fourth Amendment) on October 29, 2013; defendant removed the case to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Phillips, holding Spak’s claim accrued on the nolle date (September 10, 2010) and was therefore filed after Connecticut’s three-year limitations period.
- Spak appealed, arguing accrual should be delayed until statutory erasure of records 13 months after the nolle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a §1983 malicious-prosecution claim accrue? | Spak: accrual occurs when public records were erased (13 months after nolle). | Phillips: accrual occurs when prosecution terminated by nolle prosequi. | Accrual occurs at the nolle prosequi entry; Spak's suit was time-barred. |
| Does a nolle prosequi constitute a “favorable termination” for accrual under federal common law? | Spak: a nolle is not sufficiently "conclusive" because jeopardy does not attach and charges can be refiled. | Phillips: a nolle terminates the specific prosecution and is a favorable termination for accrual purposes. | A nolle generally constitutes a favorable termination under federal common law (except when clearly not indicative of innocence). |
| Is accrual analysis governed by state law or federal common law? | Spak: (implicit) rely on Connecticut consequences of nolle and erasure. | Phillips: accrual is federal common-law question distinct from state substantive rules. | Accrual is governed by federal common-law tort principles; state law governs merits. |
| Does Connecticut’s automatic record-erasure statute affect accrual? | Spak: record erasure (13 months after nolle) makes termination “conclusive,” so accrual should be delayed. | Phillips: erasure is administrative only and does not add substantive protection or alter termination date. | Erasure is an administrative measure and does not delay accrual; it does not make the termination more "conclusive" than the nolle. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (plaintiff must show conviction invalidation to challenge conviction-based claims)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual of §1983 claims governed by federal common-law accrual principles)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (Fourth Amendment governs certain pretrial-deprivation §1983 claims)
- Poventud v. City of N.Y., 750 F.3d 121 (en banc) (malicious-prosecution accrual when prosecution terminates in plaintiff’s favor)
- Owens v. Balt. City State's Att'ys Office, 767 F.3d 379 (nolle prosequi can constitute favorable termination)
- State v. Winer, 286 Conn. 666 (Connecticut: nolle terminates prosecution but records erased after 13 months; erasure is administrative)