429 F.Supp.3d 420
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ledura Watkins was convicted of first-degree murder in 1976 and sentenced to life without parole; his conviction was vacated by a state trial court in 2017.
- In 2017 Watkins filed a § 1983 action against former state prosecutor Robert H. Healy (and others) alleging fabrication of evidence, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and related state-law malicious prosecution claims.
- Healy moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations and prosecutorial-immunity grounds; the Court denied that motion in an earlier Opinion and Order and Healy sought reconsideration.
- Watkins’ federal claims principally allege (1) fabrication of evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and (2) malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment; he also asserts conspiracy and common-law malicious prosecution claims.
- The Court denied Healy’s motion for reconsideration, reaffirming that Watkins’ constitutional claims accrued when the conviction was vacated in 2017 and that Healy is not entitled to absolute immunity at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / statute of limitations for fabrication and malicious-prosecution claims | Watkins: claims accrue only upon favorable termination (vacatur in 2017), so suit is timely | Healy: claims accrued in the 1970s under then-prevailing law and are time-barred | Court: accrual delayed until favorable termination; claims timely (applies Heck/McDonough/Dunn) |
| Retroactivity of modern accrual rules (Heck, McDonough, Dunn) | Watkins: Harper requires applying current federal accrual rules retroactively to events that predate those cases | Healy: accrual should be judged under circa-1975–76 precedent (not Heck/McDonough) | Court: Harper governs; Heck/McDonough/Dunn apply retroactively here; accrual is at favorable termination |
| Federal absolute prosecutorial immunity | Watkins: allegations describe investigative acts (fabrication) not protected advocacy, so no absolute immunity | Healy: acted as prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity; alternatively, earlier law gave broader immunity | Court: Buckley standard applies retroactively; plausible allegations show investigative, non-advocacy functions — no absolute immunity at pleadings stage |
| Michigan state-law prosecutorial immunity | Watkins: Michigan law parallels federal standard; no absolute immunity for investigative misconduct | Healy: Bloss and state law provide broader immunity than federal law | Held: Court not convinced Bloss conflicts with Buckley; declines to grant absolute state-law immunity at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that imply invalidity of conviction do not accrue until conviction is reversed, expunged, or otherwise favorably terminated)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019) (fabricated-evidence claim accrues when criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff's favor)
- Dunn v. Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1982) (malicious-prosecution § 1983 claim accrues at favorable termination of prior criminal proceeding)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutors have absolute immunity only for advocacy functions intimately associated with judicial phase; investigative acts receive lesser immunity)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (Supreme Court decisions apply retroactively to all events and cases not finally closed)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors in initiating and presenting the prosecution)
- Harrison v. State of Michigan, 722 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2013) (applies Heck’s delayed-accrual rule retroactively to pre-Heck events)
- Ireland v. Tunis, 113 F.3d 1435 (6th Cir. 1997) (explaining absolute immunity for functions that are advocacy and intimately tied to the judicial phase)