Susan King v. Todd Harwood
852 F.3d 568
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kyle Breeden was found dead in 1998 from two non-exiting .22-caliber gunshot wounds; Susan King became a suspect because of a past relationship and comments about premonitions of Breeden being found in water.
- Initial KSP detectives (Figg, Bess, Duncan) failed to get a search warrant for King in 1999; Duncan did not believe King was responsible.
- In 2006 Detective Todd Harwood reopened the case, sought search warrants based on an affidavit that omitted key exculpatory facts (e.g., non-exiting bullets, King’s missing leg, forensic differences in bullets), and recovered non-matching .22 evidence from King’s home and yard.
- Harwood pursued charges, testified to the grand jury, and King entered an Alford plea in 2008 (maintaining innocence but pleading to avoid harsher penalty); her plea was vacated in 2014 and charges were dismissed in 2014 after a third party confessed in 2012.
- King sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution and related state tort claims; the district court dismissed on statute-of-limitations and qualified-immunity grounds and denied Rule 56(d) discovery. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to the malicious-prosecution claim against Harwood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / statute of limitations for § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim | Limitations begins when criminal proceedings terminate in favor of accused (dismissal on Oct 9, 2014), so suit filed Oct 1, 2015 is timely | Limitations began when Kentucky Court of Appeals vacated Alford plea (July 18, 2014), so suit was untimely | Court: Heck controls; limitations did not begin until favorable termination (Oct 9, 2014). King’s suit is timely. |
| Denial of pre-summary-judgment discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) | Additional discovery needed to identify defendants’ roles and obtain evidence | Defendants moved early for summary judgment; plaintiff’s 56(d) affidavit was conclusory and non-specific | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Alford plea precludes challenge to probable cause at summary judgment | Alford plea does not conclusively establish probable cause retroactively; it’s evidentiary but not dispositive here | Plea impliedly concedes probable cause and supports summary judgment for defendants | Court: Alford plea (vacated later) does not defeat King at summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact exist about lack of probable cause. |
| Qualified/absolute immunity for Harwood given grand-jury testimony and investigatory acts | Harwood’s grand-jury testimony might be absolutely immune, but his pre-testimony acts (false affidavits, omissions, setting prosecution in motion) are only qualifiedly immune and may be actionable | Rely on Rehberg to claim absolute immunity for grand-jury witness; assert probable cause existed so qualified immunity applies | Court: Rehberg grants absolute immunity only for grand-jury testimony; Harwood’s independent acts (alleged false statements, omitted exculpatory facts, initiating prosecution) are not absolutely immune. Genuine disputes preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (court must not allow § 1983 malicious-prosecution claims that would imply invalidity of conviction; limitations accrues at favorable termination)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (distinguishes false-arrest/false-imprisonment accrual rules from malicious-prosecution accrual)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (absolute immunity for grand-jury witnesses; distinguishes witnesses from officers who instigate prosecutions or fabricate evidence)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (officer seeking warrant not entitled to immunity if affidavit lacks objectively reasonable basis for probable cause)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (prosecutorial and investigator conduct that introduces false evidence can defeat immunity in certain contexts)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir.) (elements of § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim under Fourth Amendment)
- Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.) (officer liable where he fabricated evidence or knowingly/recklessly presented false testimony)
- Sanders v. Jones, 845 F.3d 721 (6th Cir.) (post-Rehberg discussion of absolute immunity for grand-jury witnesses and limits on malicious-prosecution claims)