Jerome Singleton v. City of New York, Ronald Salzer and Anthony Dellaventura

suspect sought, robbery MANSFIELD, was not he Before WATERMAN WEINSTEIN, felonious assault falsely charged him with District Judges, Circuit arrest, subjecting thus resisting Judge.* criminal prosecution. him to MANSFIELD, Judge: Circuit hand, Defendants, deny that other on the judg- from a Singleton appeals Jerome identify them- police officers failed District Court ment of the United States selves, ever Singleton or made assaulted New York en- District of for the Southern They contend robbery. arrest Motley on Judge Constance Baker tered arrested properly 9, 1979, dismissing plaintiff’s September assault, resisting arrest and ob- crimes New York City complaint governmental administration. structing under 42 two of its officers however, concede, once Defendants violation alleging that U.S.C. § these crimes and Singleton was arrested for assaulted, was he his constitutional it was estab- to the station house taken maliciously prosecuted falsely arrested and robbery the he not commit lished that did complaint resisting arrest. was The gave rise to the incident. which (1) the false grounds on the that dismissed 1975, 15, Singleton was November On were time-barred arrest and assault claims charges and his arraigned on the criminal claim, that the malicious Court subsequent trial in the Criminal filed, that allege the though timely failed charges on those City the of New York plaintiff’s in terminated 31, March 1976. jury in a on hung ended We affirm. favor. 14, 1976, Singleton’s with consent June On in 14,1975, was Singleton Nоvember On the action be “ad- that court ordered that plain- Two City. in New York restaurant contemplation dismissal.” journed officers, Ron- City police clothes New York 170.55.1 N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § Dellaventura, ar- Anthony ald Salzer and with finally dismissed in accordance receiving the after rived at restaurant 16, 1976. 170.55 on December § committed a report that a black male had commenced an ac- Singleton subsequently at a different restaurant which robbery court, still apparently in state which is tion to be apparently mistakenly believed they assault, false arrest and pending, alleging Singleton was the restaurant where Thereafter, prosecution. on Feb- malicious present. happened is a matter What next 1979, the ruary he commenced black, alleges Singleton, dispute. who 1983, alleging that federal action under police identify § officers failed that deprived him of themselves, the defendants’ conduct assaulted him and arrested him alleges “rights by secured the Constitution crime of He also robbery. for the States,” assaulting by officers, learning that laws of United upon that * adjournment contemplation Judge “2. An of the States District Court Chief United York, sitting by adjournment the action for the Eastern District of New dismissal an designation. date with a view ultimate without ordered accusatory instrument in fur- dismissal of the provides: justice. issuing 1. Upon § N.Y.Crim.Proс.Law 170.55 an therance of such order, the court must release defendant Upon arraignment in a local “1. or after Upon application information, recognizance. simpli- his upon on own criminal court people, information, prosecutor’s time not more made at infor- fied traffic complaint, the issuance and be- than six months after of such mation or a misdemeanor order, entry plea guilty or com- fore of a thereto the court must restore case to thereof, may, thereupon pro- the court of a trial mencement calendar and the action must upon people motion of the or the defendant ceed. If the is not so restored within case party, accusatory with the the other period, consent of in- such six months upon is, own con- expiration period, the court’s motion of such strument at the defendant, people by sent of both the dismissed the court deemed to have been ‘adjourned in con- the action be order justice.” in furtherance of dismissal,’ prescribed templation sub- division two. we that the limi- three-year date have held 14,1975, by arresting him November him on period imposed by a warrant on the tations N.Y.C.P.L.R. probable cause or without 214(2), to recover date, arraigned applies him to be which actions by causing § same statute, governs charges January upon liability on created on false against individuals brought brought to trial on the 1983 suits by causing him to § Quinn Syra- v. which in a dismissal of in New York. charges ended courts false Corp., 613 F.2d Neighborhood cuse on Model charges those December McGuire, 1980); (2d Leigh $5,000,000 damages. seeks complaint 1979), F.2d vacated to dismiss on Defendants moved - consideration, remanded for further ground the action time-barred. -, 64 L.Ed.2d The district found Frank, F.2d (May Meyer governed three-year limi- action was denied, (2d Cir.), cert. 434 U.S. imposed by period N.Y.C.P.L.R. tation (1977); Kaiser 214(2), applies actions “to recov- Cahn, liability imposed er ... created or 214(2) also held us to has been Section Singleton’s Finding statute.” against municipali- govern actions 1983 cause of action for false arrest and Neighbor- Quinn Syracuse Model ties. assault accrued November We supra, 613 at 449. Corp., hood occurred, on which the incident date Quinn that create differ- reasoned in “[t]o claims court concluded that these similarly sit- periods ent two limitations since his Singleton time-barred commenced a defendants would create uated classes of than after that years action more three difference, distinction without a and would prosecution date. As malicious liti- engender unnecessary for confusion claim, allegedly which arose December gants alikе.” at 449. judges 613 F.2d of Singleton terminated, court concluded that contend on Defendants-appellees here filed, timely the claim it although must Supreme recent the basis of the Court’s allege be for to dismissed failure that Chapman v. Welfare decision in Houston 600, state court had terminated in 441 99 Rights Organization, U.S. S.Ct. by plaintiff, required favor of Cardi v. 1905, (1979), appro 60 508 that the L.Ed.2d Supermarket Corp., F.Supp. General 453 is not priate statute of limitations state (S.D.N.Y.1978). judgment 633 From the 214(2) but either N.Y.Gen. N.Y.C.P.L.R. § dismissing complaint, Singleton appeals. his i(1), specifies which Municipal Law § 50— period for ac one-year, 90-day limitations

DISCUSSION against municipalities wrongful for tions conduct,2 215(3), which Congress has not N.Y.C.P.L.R. Since established or § “an one-year period federal statute of for actions fixes limitations for limitations 1983, assault, damages in federal to bat brought court under we action recover for § prosecu apply tery, imprisonment, are instructed to the state statute of false malicious tion, is appropriate libel, argument most . . ..” Their limitations 1983 ac slander § of Regents Tomanio, Chapman tions. Board the Court in stated that since 446 478, 1790, provide any 100 1983 not substantive S.Ct. “does § 618, all,” at at (1980); Railway Express Agen Johnson v. at 441 U.S. S.Ct. cy, remedy for en only 421 U.S. but furnishes (1975). rights, Following this federal constitutional man- forcement of officer, 1) city any i( perti- ful reads in act of such ... or of N.Y.Gen.Mun.Law § 50— pаrt: (c) agent employee nent thereof .. . unless ... or special proceeding be com- action or shall special proceeding action or “1. No shall year ninety days after menced within one prosecuted against city or be maintained happening upon of the which the event personal injury damage ... for or to real or claim based.” personal property is alleged to have been sus- by negligence wrong- reason or tained governs period, which ac- years. This not “to recov- 1983 is one under § been unneces- always tions had equity, imposed ... liability created er many prob- created sarily long. It had 214(2), meaning of within the § statute” plaintiffs tardy encouraging lems “statutory provi- apply to does not which barred whose causes of actions only additional reme- provide sions which improbable theories of conjure up law to or im- standing do create dies [but] longer the benefit equity gain obligations,” State Cortelle pose new supplied). (Emphasis statute. ...” N.Y.2d Corp., 38 N.Y.S.2d However, 341 N.E.2d 213(1) is not its Although § Quinn, supra, actions that such holding actions, must we equitable terms limited 214(2) questioned we governed are § statutes of limita choosing among Municipal suggestions earlier N.Y.Gen. in federal actions look applied tions be i(l) establishes appropriate Law “the stat interpretаtions 50— period for 1983 suits limitations claim fits into utes “see where 7; 613 F.2d at n. see municipalities,” Bower, 421 F.2d state scheme.” Klein York, New City Fine interpreted As so Lombard v. Educa Board of longer equity actions clear period for (E.D.N.Y.1977); tion, F.Supp. 577 Ade to plaintiff where full relief ly unavailable City, F.Supp. 812 v. New York Bower, kalu Klein v. granted can be at law. event, (S.D.N.Y.1977). In reasons (1970); Meyer, F.2d at 344 Gilbert in this case below we need decide (S.D.N.Y.1973). stated Here F.Supp. Quinn in the whether must be reconsidered damages and only makes no seeks light Supreme Court’s decision Accordingly relief. equitable claim for Chapman.3 213(1) as a eliminated statute must be might in the case. applied only possibly other relevant limitations is N.Y.C.P.L.R. statute present action Appellant agrees that 213(1), governs “an action 214(2), re- governed by N.Y.C.P.L.R. § period specifically limitation which no quiring commenced within three 213(1) gen- has prescribed by law.” Section However, accrual. years from the date of govern for understood actions erally been for he that his claims false arrest contends relief, equitable damages.4 not actions for 14, not accrue on November and assault did section 1975, court, The Practice Commentaries as the district determined 16, 1976, state: when the but rather on December prosecution terminated. Alternative- 213(1)] corresponds with CPA “[Section ly, appellant argues applicable that and reduces predecessor], 53§ [its limitations should have 10 to state statute of statute of limitations from residual however, prior Sullivan, Regan, Chap- was decided Regan 3. 557 F.2d 300 In man, analyzed open question exhaustively possi- leaving 1977), whether all other we may require periods of the latter reconsideration York State limitations case ble New so, and, applicability 214(2) Bivens-type against if other what suit of § of a context appropriate. repeat need not that discussion statute is officers. We 215(3) except note that we § here found history 213(1) legislative of § 4. The relevant alleging inapplicable to a suit an unconstitu- states: ground a search and seizure on the that tional right signifi- deprivation provision adapted a constitutional is is from section 53 “This cantly period, practice than a a com- more serious violation of act. Its some- right period,’ a mon law oi state thus warrants as a ‘residual is times referred to remedy. equity generally applicable different to such actions as instrument, an to reform action inapplicable likewise found We N.Y.C.P.L.R. period expressly no is other action where 215(1), provides one-year which limitations § ten-year period prescribed. sheriff, coroner, period against “an action fоr unnecessarily long and has been reduced to constable, liability him incurred 1, 13, years.” Leg.Doc. No. five Vol. 181st doing capacity.” an act in his official Defend- (1958). Sess. at 67 suggest applicable it to be here. ants do not specified We time this article.... No court during prosecution. been tolled by law for the shall extend the time limited contentions. reject both Although of an action.” commencement law a claim for New York Under tolling a number of the the statute codifies the time of the assault assault accrues at law,6 there no developed rules at common at the time when and one for false arrest filing for tolling the time provision see, jail, g., is released from plaintiff during period when a cause of action 915, App.Div.2d Dailey Smiley, pending against However, law, (1978). N.Y.S.2d legislature has The New York plaintiff. governs the date of accrual of federal policy repose thus determined here, asserted Kaiser v. claims such those statute of limitations out- underlying the Cahn, 1974), “es upon plaintiff arising weighs any burden point time accrual that tablishes as the to file a being required from his cause of plaintiff time when the knows or has reason subject while he is to state prosecu- injury of the which is the basis of to know tion. Seagondollar, his action.” Bireline v. any inconsistency we find be- Nor do November policy poli- the state and the federal tween knew was the time at which In cy underlying gauge 1983. order to alleged as injury arising of his from consistency, identify compare we must applicable and false arrest. The stat sault hand, policies. the one respective On running utory period therefore commenced Supreme recognized Court has Singleton suggests on that date. no reason policies repose are “fundamental should be other why the time for accrual judicial system” well-ordered and are not than November 1975.5 “disfavored federal law.” Board of Re- contends, Singleton apparently next Tomanio, supra, at gents U.S. 478 time, period the first the limitations L.Ed.2d S.Ct. during period should be tolled in which Meanwhile, policy underly- the federal pending the state criminal persons ing compensation 1983 includes him. Supreme Court has injured by deprivation of federal rules, recently tolling held that state like prevention power and the abuses periods, govern state limitations federal ac- acting those under color of state law. Rob- brought except tions under Wegmann, ertson v. U.S. policy underly- inconsistent with the federal Ct. S. Tomanio, ing Regents 1983. Board of however, policies, are un Those federal running applicable dermined 440 period New York limitations from the date Regents New York has codified the circumstances of arrest. As in of v. Toma Board nio, periods may “plaintiffs readily under which limitations be their can still enforce general claims, compensation tolled. The rule is set forth unam- thereby recovering deterrence, biguously fostering simply by N.Y.C.P.L.R. 201: “An ac- com § years.” tion . .. must three mencing be commenced within the their actions within 1977). Singleton suggest why 5. also seems to 1983 670 We see no reason § may suits not contain more than one cause of numerous claims for relief under 1983 should § action, argues on the basis of which he that his accrued on the same considered to have claim should be considered to have accrued on date. December the date when the state See, terminated and his claim for mali- (tolling during g., 207 § 6. N.Y.C.P.L.R. disagree. cious accrued. We state or residence defendant’s absence from law of this name), (tolling during § Circuit is “well settled that a 1983 under false 208 complaint may disability contain more than one cause of period plaintiff a in which is under may require borrowing action and thus the infancy, insanity, imprisonment). such as or application him, of more than one state statute of During prosecution against the state Sin- Walsh, limitations.” Williams v. custody. gleton was not in wrongs were com separate that a series Nothing prevented at Sin- 1797. S.Ct. to during period the would be gleton bringing conspiracy from suit pursuant mittеd to prosecution against him when the criminal of the purpose the enable him to defeat pending. the time-bar, preclude resuscita which is to in Rutkin As claims. we stated tion of stale Judge Weinstein scholarly In his dissent Reinfeld, cert. (2d Cir.), F.2d law “ac- acknowledges that under Reinfeld, Kaplow sub nom. denied purposes occurs at the crual for section (1956): or the is plaintiff the when time of assault (p. after the arrest.” released bail conspiracy the person by harmed “The Nevertheless, 202). he then advances a to damage as the may bring suit as soon separate theory the effect the novel to inflicted; obviously not he need him is wrongs in this case should treated the conspir- the wait until termination “single as a transaction” purposes accrual It the it. is at time acy which caused completed was not until December which ‘right relief action’ injury that the proceed- the state criminal begins the therefore arises and statute ings Singleton were dismissed. We injury run the such occurs.” at moment theory.7 authority supporting find no Indeed, contrary. the law is to the conspiracy settled does The existence causes of action postpone not the accrual of Characterizing separate defendants’ separate conspirators’ arising out wrongful having acts as been committed act, is wrongs. wrongful It conspiracy single “a furtherance of a as actionable, is whether conspiracy, which interlocking post events” does not series tort that act is labelled a violation pone claims based on individual accrual of Telephone & Korry v. International wrongful acts. The crucial time for accrual (S.D.N.Y. Corp., Telegraph F.Supp. is when the becomes sufficiently single Where no act wrong suffering from a aware he he person realize that decisive to enable a damages may be in a civil which recovered compensable injury, has suffered permit wait toll the action. To him to not accrue until simply asserting may statute cause of action running alleged discriminatory to hire in order refusal 7. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure various (10(b), 13(a), 13(g), Rights by Judge Act of VII of the cited Weinstein sue under Title Civil require 2000e, 14(a), 15(c), 20(a), 24(a)), seq. which 42 U.S.C. et Mitchell §§ joinder parties Inc., claims and counter- F.2d Parcel Service United single arising 3, 1980), from a transaction or oc- claims that since March held currence, are irrelevant issue hand. a collec- claim there based breach salutary principle that related claims and governed bargaining agreement, was tive action, parties joined single in a should be six-year statutory appli- time-bar New York’s judicial duplication whiсh avoids and waste of than suits for breach of contract rather cable to resources, nothing question do with has 90-day period prescribed for suits to vacate of when each claim accrues for statute of limi- Sin- award. In the case arbitration purposes. joinder tations To make of claims gleton applicability question does dissent, test, suggested by would 214(2); three-year period fixed the issue barred, pleader to stale enable a resuscitate In Smith v. Cre- is when the claim accrued. merely timely by joining claim it with filed 1962), mins, the court did purpose claim and thus defeat the of the stat- created ute of limitations. but acts common law differ from complained torts by Judge do not Decisions cited Weinstein detention, (assault, of there conver- recogniz- support proposition clearly that sion) period 10 within a all committed separate wrongs may or other able somehow minutes, present where the al- unlike the case pur- amalgamated for of limitations be poses statute leged prosecution until did not occur malicious single by giving into a them transaction alleged assault after the time-barred months the label of ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍“civil claim.” Kirkland v. Moreover, imprisonment. considera- and false Education, City of Board 622 F.2d Buffalo recent is Mitchell more ble doubt cast (2d 1980), nothing to 1068 Cir. has do Supreme directing us to Court decisions of any statutory with employee It that an time-bar. held apply would of limitations that statute required not to obtain more than was govern analogous state action. an “right respect to one to sue” letter with an

193 occur, applicable state possibly This all statutes limi- wrong apparent. becomes instance, tation, including 214(2) person where a contracts sili- N.Y.C.P.L.R. § and, (three assuming Chap- even that ingesting years) as the result of infinitesimal- cosis of a different stat- period application of coal dust over a man calls for ly small amounts (one Railroad, ute, 215(3) year), by N.Y.C.P.L.R. years, Long v. Island § Sadowski (one (1944), Law 50—i grad- Municipal 292 N.Y. 55 N.E.2d 497 and N.Y.Gen. § days). 90 ually oper- year becomes disabled as the result of hammer, Fowkes v. Penn ating a defective Turning Singleton’s to malicious Railroad, sylvania 264 F.2d 397 Cir. claims, prosecution undisputed it is that this Underwriters, 1959). Triangle Inc. See also 16, 1976, December claim accrued on Inc., Honeywell, F.Supp. v. 770 timely that it was therefore filed. Under (E.D.N.Y.1978), holding, as to a ffd. this law, however, the common it is well-settled Holdridge Cir. accused, order maintain a Corp., F.Supp. Heyer-Schulte prosecution, cause of action for malicious (N.D.N.Y.1977). But no such claim is must establish that made here. terminated in his favor. Restatement (cid:127) Singleton contends that it would (Second) (1977). of Torts The district § been for him to have commenced fruitless “adjournment reasoned that an prosecu- his 1983 action while the criminal § contemplation pursuant of dismissal” tion pending possibili- since there was a N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 170.55 did not consti § ty that the federal district court would dis- appellant. tute a termination in favor of ground miss the 1983 action on the that it § Despite appellant’s protestations to the con inappropriate would be for a federal court trary, the district court’s conclusion is cor adjudicate which are constitutional issues adequately rect and supported. Cardi the disposition pending relevant Corp., (E.D.N. Supermarket F.Supp. Zimmerman, charges. See Clark v. Hollander, Y.1978); Kenul v. 86 Misc.2d (M.D.Pa.1975). F.Supp. These 466, (Dist.Ct.Nassau Cty. N.Y.S.2d fears suggested by are unfounded. As 1976). Proceedings “terminated in fa are Circuit, Fifth the better course in situations vor of only the accused” their final compelled where the district court feels to disposition is such as to indicate the accused dismiss, stay, abstain is to rather than (Second) guilty, Restatement Torts protect- 1983 action so that the § adjourn Comments a & b An § possible ed from a statute limitations bar dismissal, contemplation ment in like a Pickett, 1983 suit. Conner decree, consent involves the consent both (5th 1977) (per curiam); F.2d 585 see and the accused and leaves Ricci, (1st also Mastracchio v. 498 F.2d 1257 quеstion guilt. of the accused’s open denied, 1974), cert. persuaded Nor are we 160.50 of (1975) (§ 1983 suit Law, the New York Procedure Criminal stayed “by agreement pending of counsel” upon heavily by dissenting relied our col- proceedings); outcome of state criminal league, converts a dismissal under 170.55 Klein, (5th Fulford acquittal into an or determination that the 1976), banc, affd. en 550 F.2d 342 Cir. plaintiff guilty, per- was not which would Accord, Zurek v. Woodbury, 446 prosecution. mit him for malicious to sue (N.D.Ill.1978). F.Supp. pursuant In a dismissal place, the first Accordingly, equivalent we of a verdict hold 170.55 is not finding statute of limitations was not guilty tolled in defendant him, Singleton’s charged against case. claims for assault the offense as is dem- Since imprisonment and false jury’s accrued on Novem onstrated case verdict, ber inability confirming and this action was not com reach a thus February surely probable menced until more than that there cause for his later, years indicating three these at by prosecution claims are barred and least real 160.50, by classifying a Section 170.55 might retrial he be possibility upon defendant and “in favor” of the as dismissal convicted. prosecution to be permitting the arrest and “spe- confirms the nullity, merely procedure creates deemed Section 170.55 by conferred cial break for first offenders” “special as a probation, designed not unlike stigma By erasing the 170.55 itself. break, first to offenders.” given usually by the defendant might be borne otherwise Hollander, Misc.2d Kenul the prosecution, as a of the statute result (Dist.Ct.Nassau County N.Y.S.2d of “not finding guilty;” does not authorize Pirro, see, Adjournment in Con generally, expunge the to the simply permits court Criminal Proce templation Dismissal: him, just is authorized against as record 170.55, 38 Alb.L.Rev. Law Section dure respect juve- federal laws with as (1974) (hereinafter Adjourn cited youthful offenders who delinquents nile or hiatus between ad ment). The six-month acts.8 If criminal an ad- committed signif journment especially is dismissal of dismissal journment contemplation in observation, during period It is a icant: the were held to be a result favorable to the behavior which time defendant’s bringing an ac- defendant whether pros to determine the be observed prose- fewer prosecution, tion for malicious adjournment in the acquiescence ecutor’s to consent to such willing would be cutors justified. prosecutor’s decision purpose would served adjournments. No totally calendar restore the case to the if the in case issue dismissing the criminal discretionary and need not be based on fac guilt any innocence were in event to or relating to in original tors the defendant’s more pru- in a civil suit. The litigated guilt. or the New York CPL nocence As course, be less wastеful dent which would it, a Commentary puts court, dismissal is Practice would be to parties the period granted at the of the case to bring pending end trial. “[i]f growing This confirmed unsuccess- behaved himself.” fact that defendant by prosecutors ful to condition the efforts granting adjourn for judges it is common adjournments on the defend- granting of to es contemplation ments dismissal rights against his agreement ant’s waive which the requirements tablish behavioral see, People v. g., e. Wil- government, during adjourn must defendant meet mot, (Crim.Ct.N.Y.1980); 428 N.Y.S.2d 568 avoid period having ment in order to Davis, (Sup. Kurlander v. 427 N.Y.S.2d calendar, see Adjourn restored to case Cty.1980). Ct.Monroe 235-39, ment, supra, at that an confirms adjournment contemplation dismissal question There remains being respects “in all favorable deprivation is far from 1983 claim for whether a § through malicious the defendant.” instance, any stage proceed- despite fact that who officer therefor For one juvenile delinquent adjudicated ing or has been is admissible evidence him guilty committing any found the criminal act of interests other court.” his York, accused, proceed- juvenile generated which he was New in order to Police records being handicapped by ings involving the offender’s segregated avoid those are from adjudication, strong protect adults, measures to finger- takes id. all arrests сonsequences. him from the Section 782 of the pursuant prints photographs generated N.Y.Family provides Court Act that: juvenile delinquency adjudications must be de- adjudication op- stroyed department when if “No under this article shall any right privilege age as a without erate forfeiture of or the individual reaches the subsequently disqualify any person any having from or Id. suffered criminal convictions. receiving any holding public 753-b(4). license office at § by public authority.” granted Congress re- laws with has enacted similar provides See, that: spect youthful g., Section offenders. to federal person “Neither was before setting fact automatically aside 18 U.S.C. family this article for a hear- court under youthful certain con- convictions offender confession, any ing nor admission or state- ditions. ment made him to the

195 prosecution a malicious claim proving element of alleging and stated without may be adopted applied by in some generally terminated been prosecution has courts, Choquette, was not ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍420 indicating person that the manner Sullivan denied, We believe charged. offense guilty (1st 1969), of the cert. 398 674 Cir. F.2d The essence proof 1691, is essential. that such 26 L.Ed.2d 62 90 S.Ct. U.S. groundless alleged is the 1983 claim Jones, (4th the § 551 F.2d 939 (1970); Morrison v. which there would without prosecution, 1977), respect with to federal tort even prosecution A for the claim. basis Powell, 167, 191 claims, 566 Dellums v. in a cause which results probable on based denied, (D.C.Cir.), cert. U.S. n. 65 here, does not as was the case hung jury, (1977); Unit within defendant of deprive the F.Supp. 997 Levering, ed States proof Without meaning of 1983. § Prosser, D. Torts (D.Del.1978). also See probable based on prosecution (4th at 853 ed. at 835 and § § favor in defendant’s was terminated cause (Second) of Torts § Restatement hold otherwise exists. To no federal claim Prosecution (1977); Malicious 52 Am.Jur.2d relitigate the a defendant permit would Prosecu- (1970); 54 Malicious C.J.S. §§ by way of a cause probable § issue of Annot., (1948); 14 A.L.R.2d tion § action, court’s determina- despite the state nothing in the (1950). We see issue him after full tion of that the federal law which undermines common evidence, pos- thus fair consideration Where, as by policies fostered § harassment, waste and prospect of ing the case, prior proceeding ended present contrary principles litigation, endless guilt hung jury Singleton’s in a was federalism. must fail. open, left the claim decision is therefore con Our respect With to the defendant cited the dissent sistent with decisions York, an additional City of New there (pp. 199-201) to the effect claim must why Singleton’s reason § scope not define or limit the tort law does Department Monell v. be dismissed. Under principle under a liability Services, 436 U.S. of Social S.Ct. disagree. A 1983 com which we do not (1978), municipality allege wrong plain plaint must still only under damages be sued for requirement is not met tiff. This violations where the constitutional seeking claim review of poli official pursuant to an been committed unfairness, grounds ab 690-91, custom, at cy or proof process of denial of due or a sent policy alleged or custom is 2036. No such maliciously finding that the defendant Mailet, Moreover, Turpin charge of which he was here. prosecuted upon 1980), we noted that an guilty. gov found not case is F.2d 196 by the Fourth in principle policy” ordinarily erned stated cannot “official Duncan, 499 F.2d 963 Circuit Tucker single illegality, incident of ferred from a court, 1974), in dismiss where arrest or excessive use as a first false such ing 1983 malicious force, circum absent some additional because under North law a nol Carolina stances. attorney from pros obtained the defense court is af- judgment of the district did not constitute a favor prosecutor firmed. termination, it was “not able reasoned that to borrow from state law a inappropriate WEINSTEIN, (dissent- Judge District body governing of rules actiona developed ing): wrongs procedural ble and a bar to the which must at pleadings, Based on the assertion of a federal claim of relative trivi favorably to be construed most stage law this ality.” Id. at 965 n. 1. The common upon which the proceed plaintiff, theory and the rule that termination of the earlier dismissed, facts and law ings complaint in favor of the accused is an essential Plaintiff, in a like are en- follows: claim. Others situation may be summarized as man, in a bring was arrested restaurant before the couraged black actions humiliating cause under circum- without and to state criminal action is dismissed and on November accept stances beaten than the bitter end rather defend to policemen, chagrined and frus- Defendant voluntary dismissals. no they trated because had basis for inconsistent legal The conclusions are arrest, punish plaintiff for and order First, legal principles. with a number of charged him with a felo- falsely protesting, liberally title 42 should be section 1983 of re- assault themselves and with nious designed legislation as remedial construed November sisting arrest. On protect oppressed the weak and —and of de- plaintiff arraigned was as result blacks, pro- who needed particularly most charges. Despite fendants’ false defend- adopted— the statute tection trial, jury malicious perjury ants’ policemen. actions lawless All unable to reach a verdict. actions Second, that is remedy being is a federal it solely defendants taken were because limita- sought, if state statutes of and even his plaintiff’s deprive race and to him of part as of the federal tions are received constitutional rights. scheme, can- categories enforcement their July On the state criminal court applied where this would rigidly not be prosecution adjourned ordered in con- remedial, statutory federal frustrate and it templation dismissal was dismissed Third, procedure and law. common December com- on 1976. Plaintiff whole emphasizes the “transaction” February action rights menced civil on relief,” not of facts pleading “claims for pursuant title 42 to section sep- predicated discrete and upon which are Code, depriva- alleging of the United States action,” theory still ex- arable “causes of rights tion secured Constitution of limitations. tant in the state’s statute and laws of the United States. encroaching Fourth, on federal civil cases law, According to the federal now in- proceedings criminal should pending state plaintiff’s complaint, though terpreted, discouraged comity grounds on where merits, clearly sufficient on the must be Younger possible pursuant spirit dismissed because his claim for relief is 746, 271 Harris, 401 U.S. divided into discrete three causes of Fifth, federal action applicable for state statutes criminal frustrating unnecessarily second, of limitation. first and burdensome procedurеs designed avoid assault, false arrest barred unnecessary criminal trials and criminal years November three after the Sixth, stigmatizations should be avoided. third, beatings. arrest and for mali- fact take account of the law should prosecution, although cious was in- timely, bring cases people who these sufficient the result was favor- because not se, pro proceed federal courts often though able to resulted —even ignorant are of the niceties of charges against a dismissal of all criminal practice, and lack the contacts with photographs, him and destruction of all fin- more well-to- legal profession that the gerprints and like materials and the other society rely our on to do and assured and, sealing of New other under records — by statutes of prevent having claims barred York law no cause of action arises if the seventh, every defendant And limitations. proceedings do not eventuate lawyer defense every in a criminal case and plaintiff’s favor. defeat, victory, it a would consider necessity dismissed without a case I. under a statuto- particularly for a trial GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS of all requires destruction ry scheme that sealing of fingerprints and photographs This is a curious result. Plaintiff is de- prosecu- showing redress that a presumptively agency nied valid all records See, g., Ark.Stat.Ann. guilt. Federal law place. ever taken had tion required); Colo. (guilty plea (Supp.1977) policy, flouting of require such should 401(1) (Supp.1978) sense. Rev.Stat.Ann. common good practice 16-7— required); Conn. program (rehabilitation Supp.1979) 54-76p (West Gen.Stat.Ann. § II. 9.95A.030 (same); Wash.Rev.Stat.Ann. CRIMINAL OF STATE DISMISSAL See, Zablotsky, (same). generally, FAVORABLE WAS PROCEEDING Diversion Pretrial Analysis An of State TO PLAINTIFF Statutes, and Soc.Prob. 15 Colum.J.Law of whether question to the We turn first Note, Diversion From the (1979); Pretrial proceedings criminal the dismissal of state Process, 83 Yale L.J. Criminal favorable, a 1983 action permitting program out its carrying In malicious to a state analogy section 170.55 under equating a dismissal law, and, a fortio- New York claim. Under adopted York has acquittal, New with an law, crimi- ri, terminating a under federal that ensure provisions two other in con- adjournment after proceeding nal he to the status occu- is restored defendant respects all dismissal is in templation of prosecution— arrest and pied prior to the the defendant. favorable to destruc- They require complete innocence. records of sealing of “all” official tion or Pro- of New York Criminal 170.55 Section says provision one prosecution. And process succinctly: describes the cedure Law pro- or “a criminal action explicitly that arraignment in a or after Upon 1. be considered аgainst person shall ceeding may, . .. the court local criminal court person.” in favor of such terminated the defend- people motion of the or upon the state 160.50(2). It is hard to see how of the other ant and with the consent spoken clearly. more could have court’s own motion party, upon or and people of both the (b) (c) with the consent and reading paragraphs A defendant, the action order that an order (2) of 160.50shows subsection contemplation of dismiss- “adjourned in equated under section 170.55 al,” two. in subdivision prescribed ancillary provi- “complete acquittal.” (emphasis supplied): contemplation in sions state adjournment

2. An of the adjournment an of dismissal upon termination 160.50. Order with a view action without date ordered the accused. in favor of criminal action accusatory of the to ultimate dismissal of a criminal Upon the termination justice. instrument in furtherance person proceeding action or order, the court issuing such an Upon as defined subdi- person, favor of such on his own must release the defendant section, unless the dis- of this vision two Upon application recognizance. upon motion with not less attorney trict time not more than people, any made at person or his days notice to such than five after the issuance such six months to the satisfaction attorney demonstrates order, restore the case to the court must justice that the interests of the court thereup- must the calendar and the action otherwise, own or the court on its require case is not so restored proceed. If the days five notice with not less than motion period, the accu- within such six months attorney his determines person to such or is, expiration at the satory instrument justice require other- that the interests to have been dis- such deemed period, for such de- states the reasons wise and in furtherance of the court missed record, the court on the termination justice. proceed- action or such criminal wherein order, an shall enter ing was terminated adjournment in contem- New York’s by the immediately be served which shall pretrial unlike other plation of dismissal is commissioner upon clerk of the premised which are programs diversion justice services of the division of implicit admission of explicit or upon thereof, of crimi- on file with the division depart- upon police heads of all and court, services, agen- justice law enforcement nal ments and other thereof, be sealed having directing prosecutor’s that: or office copies agency, cies any person or and available to not made (a) еvery person such photograph and public private agency; or all proof, or photographic plate taken or palmprints fingerprints made availa- (d) such records shall be pursuant pro- person per- made of such or to such person ble to the accused regard agent, visions this article shall be made designated son’s terminated, except a proceeding action or (i) prosecutor any pro- available section or pursuant dismissal 170.56 moved in which the has ceeding accused all chapter, duplicates 210.46 of or 170.56 pursuant section an order thereof, copies forthwith be re- shall (ii) a law en- chapter, 210.46 of this person, attorney turned to such parte motion agency ex forcement represented who him at the time of the court, agency if dem- such any superior proceeding, the action or termination of of the court the satisfaction onstrates to or given by person at the address such records be requires that that such justice attorney proceeding, the action or during it, (iii) any or state or available to made justice by the division of criminal services responsibility agency or local officer any en- by police department and or law possess of licenses to for the issuance having any photo- such agency forcement applica- made guns, when the accused has proof, graph, plate palm- or photographic tion such a license. for possession print or in its or fingerprints of one of 2. For the subdivision control; its under section, proceed- this a criminal action or (b) any department or law en- ing person shall be terminated against including forcement agency, the division person where : favor of such services, justice of criminal which trans- (a) accu- dismissing an order the entire any mitted or otherwise forwarded person against such satory instrument agency any the United States or seventy pursuant to article four hundred jurisdiction state any other or of other entered; or New copies outside state of York (b) order to the entire accu- an dismiss any photographs, photographic such against person such satory instrument plates proofs, palmprints finger- or 170.50, 170.55, 170.30, pursuant to section relating those actions prints, including 170.75, 180.70, 170.56, 210.20 or 210.46 proceedings pur- or dismissed mental this section chapter or 81.25 170.56 or this suant section 210.46 of en- hygiene law was or deemed entered chapter, request formally shall forthwith appealed people tered and the have not writing copies that all such be returned order or determination from such police depаrtment or enforce- law from appeals people or appeal by agency ment which transmitted or for- people; has been such order them, upon warded such return such or department agency shall them or return (c) complete acquittal a verdict of herein, provided except re- those of this pursuant to section 330.10 made lating pursuant to dismissals to section or .... chapter; chapter 170.56 or of this shall not 210.46 Effect of termination of crimi- 160.60. agen- department be returned such or the accused. nal actions in favor of cy; Upon of a criminal the termination (c) all in- papers, official records proceeding against person or favor cluding orders a court judgments and subdivision two person, such as defined in not deci- including published but court chapter, the ar- 160.50 of this opinions section sions or records and briefs rest shall be deemed appeal, prosecu- prosecution to the arrest or relating restored, tion, accused shall be duplicates copies nullity and the including all (1940), U.S. 61 S.Ct. L.Ed. law, to the status he contemplation interme- held that “an further occupied prosecu- before Court the arrest * * * is a appellate shall not state court arrest or diate tion. The any per- ascertaining law which is disqualification operate as datum engage a federal court pursue disregarded son so accused not to be profession, or activity, occupation, persuasive lawful it is other unless convinced specifically calling. Except where re- highest data that court of the state permitted by statute or At quired or decide otherwise.” would court, Thus, a superior supplied.). authorization of specific (Emphasis at 183 conditions, to di- person required authority no such shall be under some vulge pertaining ar- may information bound even an intermedi- not be or prosecution. ruling. rest It fol- appellate ate court then, application lows here holding no New York case We have found involved, of a deci- federal statute precludes 170.55 dismissal section to an sion of a state trial court as under- prosecution. claim for malicious While obi- law should a fortiori lying issue of state in one New York court ter dictum lower an appli- This but controlling. such a dismissal as suggests that viewed v. Tomp- of Erie R. cation of rule Co. purpose, not favorable kins, L.Ed. [304 implies oppo- holding .... 1188] site, suit for it ruled that a for malicious brought during When federal remedial law is stake finally the case is period six month before characterization of the effect of Hollander, Kenul 86 Misc.2d dismissed. v. matter law for federal is a 466, (D.C.Nass.Co.1976). 382 650 See, N.Y.S.2d g., e. policy. federal decision and C.A. Corp., F.Supp. 453 Supermarket Cardi v. Courts, Cf. Wright, (1976); Law of 60 Federal § Kenul, (E.D.N.Y.1978) (speaking of 633 Wechsler, Hart and Federal and the Courts Court, also County “Nassau District held Bator, System, by P. Federal 762ff Ed. accepted who had an ACOD Wechsler, D. P. Shapiro, Mishkin and H. could not maintain a malicious 1973); Hill, in Procedural Law Feder- State claim”). Nondiversity Litigation, al 69 Harv.L.Rev. 66, Lehman, (1955); 91 Is cf. Westen disrespect County It no to the Nassau There After the Death of Life Erie District that even in suggest Court 311, (1980). 315 Diversity?, 78 Mich.L.Rev. situation, case, diversity true in a Erie Thus, highest of even were the New hardly federal courts would feel bound York section dismissal to hold that a 170.55 statement of court on state of New precluded prosecution, a claim of malicious law, particularly contrary York when it is this would not be determinative of the suf- plain words the statute. As the of appellant’s ficiency statutory of Supreme noted in Commissioner of Court rights claim his federal constitutional 456, Bosh, 465, v. Internal Revenue 387 U.S. Bristow, See, g., e. violated. 1983: 1776, 1782, (1967) 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 886 Analysis Suggested Approach, An 29 (emphasis original): in 255, (1975); Nahmod, Ark.L.Rev. Even in cases this diversity Court has “Background” of Section 1983 Tort held while further the decrees of 5, Note, (1974); 50 38 Liability, Ind.L.J. “lower state courts” should be “attrib- * * * Analysis Damage 1983: of Section An weight uted some the decision ” * * * Awards, (1976). ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍58 Neb.L.Rev. 590 where controlling [is] spoken tort highest “apply cоurt of the has not Federal courts should not law State point. King respecting on the v. Order of as if with blinders the federal United Travelers, involved, policy seemingly making tort law Commercial U.S. at 153] [333 Nahmod, 160-161, at liability.” 68 492. And in determinative of 1983 S.Ct. [488] Co., West Tel. & Tel. 311 Tort “Background” v. American Section 1983 200 also, Supreme very has careful Court been (1974). See

Liability, Ind.L.J. Bristow, Suggest Analysis An 1983: that would to lock into rule itself 255, 276-277 Ark.L.Rev. Approach, ed catego slavishly follow state require it to and at principles tort law State it noted in cases. As rizations been modi procedures tendant often Express Agency, 421 Railway v. Johnson through analogy utilizing them fied 1716, 1722, 454, 465, 44 L.Ed.2d U.S. 95 S.Ct. federal 1983 developing when the details of (1975): See, City g., e. common law. Owen guide Although primary law is our 622, 680, 100 S.Ct. Independence, 445 U.S. not, sure, our area, to be in this it is J., 1398, 1430, (1980) (Powell, 63 L.Ed.2d guide. . . . exclusive [Considerations dissenting) (“for municipalities in almost their displaced law where be of our the Court creates jurisdictions, 90% application would inconsistent depriva liability broader for constitutional torts.”); Baker v. cause underlying tions than for state-law policy the federal McCollan, 443 U.S. consideration. action under (1979) (“Respondent’s 61 L.Ed.2d 433 also, Toma Regents Board g., See charge in the innocence of the contained nia, S.Ct. warrant, tort claim of while relevant (“in (1980) general, state imprisonment largely ... irrele false to be disfa repose cannot said policies deprivation liberty to his vant claim added). law.”) (emphasis vored law.”); Carey process without due following questions on Even law Piphus, 435 U.S. S.Ct. suits, limitations in 1983 of statutes of (failure of common law of federal recognizes that “considerations recognize analogous cause of compensation to deny quite adjudicating not sufficient reason appropriate ism are Cataldi, plaintiff); Howell v. to § 1983.” federal suits based U.S.C. (3rd 1972) (“A right 492, 100 Id. at exclusively predi is not relief under federal considerations primacy This duty imposed cated a breach recognized by the Second Circuit Reddin, torts.”); law of Willis Neighborhood Quinn v. Model Syracuse (short 1969) state statute 438, (2d 1980), Corp., 613 449 F.2d Cir. will not applied of limitations be where statute, rejected applicable it short N.Y. right); federally effect is to created burden i(1), rights in a civil Gen.Mun.Law § Tilendis, 287, McLaughlin v. 398 F.2d 290 50— though against municipality a (Illinois (8th 1968) Immunity Cir. Tort Act —even protect probably could not defendant from action would have relied the state courts Henne, 1983); grounded in v. Jobson 355 it —in statute year favor of three 129, 133(2nd 1966) (in suits, F.2d Cir. 1983 engen- following state law “would because immunity common law doctrines a in unnecessary litigants” confusion for der bar). also, rights g., Taylor civil cases. See e. purest It would indeed be coincidence 1980); 626 247 Jobson Mayone, if the state remedies for violations of Hennе, 129, 355 F.2d 133 rights private common-law citizens 702, Reddin, Willis v. were fully appropriate to redress those injuries only a state official can criminal action Regarding a dismissal a against cause which the Constitution contemplation in adjournment after an provides protection. that as an unfavorable termina- dismissal 5, 167, Monroe v. 365 U.S. 196 n. Pape, rights plaintiff’s federal civil tion bars 473, 5, n. 5 L.Ed.2d 492 S.Ct. indirectly wholly in creates a claim effect (Harlan, J., concurring), part in overruled presumption of a unwarranted irrebuttable grounds, Department other Monell v. proba- would guilt criminal defendant’s 658, 2018, Services, 436 U.S. S.Ct. Social be ac- sought if (1978). bly 56 L.Ed.2d 611 be unconstitutional that there was a mistrial before See, The fact g., e. Jackson directly. complished 316, 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. is of no The mistrial significance. 443 U.S. dismissal Virginia, 571, 2786-88, 560, 2799, 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d preju- holdout been due to one may have 890, denied, 576-77, rehearing guilty verdict or juror insisting on a diced (1979); In re 62 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. insisting opposite. We do not on the to one Winship, 397 U.S. on the curiosity lacks know and law (1970); Stephen, Jeffreis and L.Ed.2d 368 good point is irrelevant. For because “Defenses, Presumptions and Burden policy even it is reason Law,” Yale L.J. in the Criminal Proof or fail jury agree into what led inquire No or federal need See, Evidence, Rules of agree. Federal justifies such harsh result. The 606(b); 18 1508. After U.S.C. § Rule guilt has not made a determination mistrial, and an if is another trial there permitting would undermined cоnsider the ac- any court would acquittal, rights remedy. pursuit of pur- for the a favorable termination quittal prosecutor cannot claim an inter- The state right bring a determining the pose of police officers who protecting est See, rights suit. tort or federal civil faith and violation have acted bad Vernon, City 68 A.D.2d g., Lee v. of Mount the Constitution. 215, 217 (2d Dep’t. 414 N.Y.S.2d significant construing section It is aff’d, 49 429 N.Y.S.2d 1979), N.Y.2d Attorneys Rights title 1988 of Civil (1980). It should make 407 N.E.2d 404 Supreme Award Act of Fees mistrial, that, there is no after difference rejected contention that settle- Court legal having exactly same a dismissal a civil suit under section rights ment of acquittal. as an effect plaintiff’s being deemed precluded ob- party purpose prevailing III. noted: taining counsel fees. Court prevailed respondent fact BY POLICE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS through rather through a settlement than A SINGLE TRANS- CONSTITUTED weaken claim to litigation does not her ACTION PART OF WHICH WAS NO Nothing language in the of § fees. OF BARRED BY THE STATUTE power conditions District Court’s LIMITATIONS issues litigation fees on full award title 42 Congress section 1988 of enacted judicial on a determination that conjunction with section Section been violated. plaintiff’s law, of federal requires application Gagne,-U.S.-,-, Maher deficient, and then unless it is found to be (1980). A it is state law so far as authorizes use of that conclusion should true in fortiori Constitution, sec- inconsistent with the determining law how federal common рrovi- laws. The tion 1983 other federal treat New York’s dismissal of a should part: sion reads For, action without a full trial. criminal Proceedings in of 1988. vindication plaintiff present if in the action had even rights. civil tried and the verdict would acquitted, been jurisdiction in civil and criminal The established no more than failure of have the matters conferred on the district courts beyond jury the to a reasona- convinced chapter provisions the of this and Title of his A dismiss- guilt. voluntary ble doubt protection persons the of all in the for satisfactory as by al the state is at least rights, civil and for in their United States indication of Cf. Morrison innocence. vindication, their shall be exercised Jones, (4th 1977) 551 F.2d Cir. conformity the laws enforced (“After jury, a hung his trial ended with States, as are so far such laws the United charges the dismissed the effect; him;” carry the same into against dispo- treated as a favorable suitable verdict). adapt- despite they “not all are not guilty” sition lack of but in cases where 10(b), compulsory Rule pleadings, cedure in the object, or are deficient ed to the crossclaims, Rule counterclaims, 13(a), Rule furnish suitable necessary to provisions 14(a), rela- Rule law, practice, 13(g), third-party offenses punish remedies 15(c), amendments, join- Rule law, tion back of as modified common remedies, joinder Rule and statutes der of clаims changed by the constitution as of 20(a), and intervention Rule having parties, the court wherein State 24(a), all founded Rule are right, civil or cause jurisdiction of such a basis of a transaction as concept of the held, same is not inconsist- far as the so Clark, See, Two g., and laws of the claim for relief. with the Constitution ent Rules, 58 Procedural of the Federal States, be extended to and Decades shall United Cf. Gomez in the trial and the said courts Col.L.Rev. govern - -, Toledo, 100 S.Ct. .... U.S. disposition of the cause (federal common law matter of federal law since is a Accrual proof in pleading and governs allocation concerning body of case law there exists a suits; public plead need not plaintiff despite of federal claims accrual and — claim in order to state a bad faith official’s to the con- theoretical considerations some relief). part common law is trary —federal claim fourth and fifth plaintiff’s under section “laws of the United States” of an as- consisting violations 61 amendment Rawlings Ray, 312 U.S. arrest, sault, and a mali- (1941) (state an unreasonable 85 L.Ed. 605 operates defendants cious applicable of limitations but statute injuries that oc- specific chronicle of the question”); time of accrual ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍“is a federal of the entire Anderson, during the course curred Cope v. moment From the (1947) (same). question. Determi transaction in 91 L.Ed. 1602 contact with the plaintiff’s relief accrues first nation of when a claim for single of dismissal there was a question of federal law in section the moment remains where, accord- Cahn, interlocking events Kaiser v. series 1983 suits. plaintiff’s well-pleaded theory, Seagondollar, ing Bireline v. 1977). press prosecu- their (4th policemen It is therefore continued 567 F.2d 260 original unconstitution- by any rigid part in tion as of their inappropriate to be bound matter, plain- tort, design. practical re al As a terpretation procedural of state attack, contends, un- continuing determining the accrual date tiff their medial law in by the crimi- knowingly aided and abetted rights claim. plaintiff’s federal state, intended system nal court prevailing view is that accrual claim against any possible as a defense time of section 1983 occurs illegal beating. arrest and plaintiff of when the is released assault or Locke, injuries helpful Isolating specific on bail after the arrest. Rinehart First, it enables the court ways. But cf. Bire (7th several have been identify 567 F.2d 260 Cir. better Seagondollar, line v. Second, it establishes the time infringed. when the 1977) (cause of action accrues deprivation oc- during the defendants frame plaintiff knows a basis for as- Lastly, provides rights). constitutional In curred. interfered with plain- here, however, damages suffered sessing the facts light of the process should not be carried tiff. But of accrual must consider determination frustrating a valid claim. point reflected in the series total transaction complaint. events set forth in the specific injury provide do not Instances of fractionalizing plaintiff’s theory deeply imbed- a foundation The transaction state rights claim into several federal civil federal civil aspects in all of modern ded City v. Kirkland tort causes of action. Cf. procedure it is federal procedure —and Education, 622 F.2d Buffalo Board of in these federal of which must be followed 1066, (2d 1980) (where claims are 1068 Cir. Rules of Civil Pro- actions. In the Federal may act both a state the same constitute related,” procedural requirements “directly bar); Mitchell v. United a constitution deprivation not act as a and the of should tort Service, Inc., (2d 194, Pape, 365 U.S. right.” Parcel al v. [Monroe 1980) (a approach” “fractionalized Cir. 5 L.Ed.2d 492 of be where a state statute should not used (1961), v. part, overruled in Monell De a of to federal cause applied limitations Services, 436 U.S. partment of Social effec- paramount interest is the action —the (1978)] .... 56 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. issue). policy at tuation of federal under the single of Civil cause complaint in alleged in the Rights Act Cremins, (9th v. 308 F.2d 187 Cir. Smith of action un cludes three distinct causes 1962), is was about instructive. Smith application law for the der State and calls he religious tract when distribute limita of two distinct statutes of State two officers who detained seized Inconsistency and confusion destroyed of him for ten minutes and some tions ... single cause of action allegedly the literature. These acts de- would result if fragmented right speech to free were prived by Congress him of the created religion, right not to be analogies exercise of drawn to free accordance of deprived property process of without due law and the sever rights created law, right and the be secure differing periods applica al of limitation seizures. The unreasonable searches and right ap to each state-created ble stated district court held that plied single federal cause action. assault, imprison- battery, false claims for Cremins, (9th v. F.2d Smith ment and that different and conversion added); also, 1962) (emphasis see Wal Cir. applied limitations should be statutes of III, Island, v. den Inc. of Rhode State all, any, determine if were time-barred. (1st 1978) (for reasons fed F.2d 945 Cir. reversing, In the Ninth Circuit determined preferable eral it is that one statute policy, different inappropriate apply that was suits); apply of limitations to all statutes of limitations each of several Robinson, (7th v. Beard injuries that from the emanated constitu- 1977), denied, 907, 98 Cir. cert. 438 U.S. by plaintiff tional violations claimed (1978) (“. . . It of his 1983 suit. declared: basis characterizing process often strained civil Rights 1983 of the Civil Act clear- Section rights law torts ...” claims as common obligations ly rights imposes creates avoided); Taylor Mayone, v. should from which would exist different 1980); Quinn Syracuse F.2d 247 Cir. A law in the absence of statute. common Corp., 613 F.2d Neighborhood Model give state of facts of course given 1980); Township Gipson to a of action in common law rise cause River, (D.N.J.1979) Bass F.R.D. as well as to a cause of action under tort simply cannot (“a state tort claims statute elements of the two section but the to bar a be used here suit] [in elements an are not the same. The right.”). (1) are the deni- action under section 1983 Inconsistency ac- and confusion result if right al under color of state law of a purposes for the crual and laws of secured the Constitution dividing claim is ascertained ele- United Neither of these States. complained sepa- of into course conduct required ments would be make out tort tort; rate causes wooden reliance law cause of action in common both concepts. continuing law notion of creating might without com- integral part of federal law. tort is Gor- liability. As mon law tort Mr. Justice Warren, (6th 579 F.2d 386 City don recently deprivation Harlan “a suggested, California, Briley State right significantly constitutional light In a F.2d 849 different from and more serious than present here the remedial right of a and therefore total transaction violation 1983 are though and deterrent of section remedy deserves a different even Houses, by providing plaintiff In both sup- furthered with rea statements of the opportunity sonable become aware of his porters of corroborated 1983] [§ injuries rights and his to pursue and his Congress, enacting 1983], intend- § [§ Cahn, remedy. federal Cf. Kaiser give remedy ed to a broad for violations 1974) (legal practical F.2d 282 and federally protected rights. of by plaintiff instituting difficulties faced at 2033. U.S. 98 S.Ct. prosecuting rights claim influence doubt can no that § [T]here [§ 1983] court’s determination of accrual the Rights Civil Act was intended applicability tolling provi date broadly provide remedy, to be con- way facilitating suit); sions in a strued, against all forms of official viola- rel. Newsday, United States ex Sabella rights. tion of federally protected (E.D.N.Y.1970) F.Supp. (same). 700-1, 98 436 U.S. at S.Ct. at 2041. “As It is appropriate judicial also to take no- legislation, remedial section 1983 is to be fact that type tice of transaction generously primary construed further its complained of by plaintiff is not an uncom- Toledo,-U.S.-, purpose.” Gomez v. mon or activity. study рo- isolated One -, 1920, 1923, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 patrols “many lice indicated policemen, (1980). it, whether or not the justify regularly facts Application requiring of state rules follow their use of charge force plaintiff’s claim fraetionalization of that the was assaulting policeman citizen plaintiff’s process dismissal of due resisting arrest.” Radzinowicz and directly provi- claim interferes with that Justice, Wolfgang, II, Crime Vol. sion’s dual policies compensating the vic- (1977) Reiss, (excerpting Police Brutality, tims of unconstitutional action and deter- Questions). Answers Key Section 1983 ring like Many misconduct the future. designed provide remedy for this pro of these civil brought actions are kind of police abuse. The modernization of by poor, ignorant plain- se and ill-advised pleading practice in the federal courts ought place We unnecessary tiffs. bar- possible intended to make it to apply way riers of the lowest socio-econom- procedural rules with an understanding of groups society, ic our who need the most the reality of the whole transaction. protection.

IV. OF

POLICY SECTION 1983 IS TO V.

PROTECT THOSE APT LEAST

TO KNOW RIGHTS FEDERAL LITIGATION SHOULD AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH The primary purpose Rights Civil STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Act of 1871 “. .. was to enforce the four teenth through imposition amendment present holding effect of civil and criminal liabilities on those who those abused who are still deprived protect others constitutionally harassing through рressing them rights.” Note, Actionability ed Negli charges criminal must commence a gence Under Eighth Section 1983 though civil suit in federal court even Amendment, 127 U.Pa.L.Rev. pending state criminal case is unresolved. ‍​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍also, . e. g., See Monell Depart This will necessarily increase difficulties in Services, 658, 683-9, ment of Social in the state courts and 2018, 2032-8, (1978); litigations in civil 1983 in federal courts. It Note, Developments in the Law-Section an appropriate require solution to Federalism, 1983 and 90 Harv.L.Rev. brought early that the suits be and then be (1977); Gressman, Unhappy kept His If abeyance in federal court. tory of Rights Legislation, Civil 50 Mich.L. nothing federal court can do until the state Rev. related criminal it would case concluded ... (“[Jjudicial proceedings at a time U.S.C. the civil suit best to commence be and credit in be evaluated. faith properly can have the same full criminal case shall the is today’s decision ... as unfortunate result of the United States every An court within will prosecutors and be defendants usage in the courts of they have law or cases more litigate the criminal forced to they are tak- such ... from State and than to utilize the softer fiercely rather Grand, also, Inc. v. en.”). g., S. T. See the techniques of state more desirable often York, 32 N.Y.2d 344 N.Y. of New City channels. pretrial diversion (criminal 298 N.E.2d S.2d proof of same issues furthering the conviction is conclusive In addition 1983, fixing proceeding); accrual policies of section raised civil subsequently plaintiff’s state court Evidence, 803(22) of at the conclusion Rule of Federal Rules principles promotes the proceeding criminal evidence previous of conviction (judgment re- to state-federal comity of fundamental suit). in civil rights claim in- Plaintiff’s civil lations. issues, and wit- same evidence

volves the VI. trial. criminal as did his state court nesses of, Unnecessary confusion interference CONCLUSION proceeding might well of such delay required to plaintiff been occurred had relying too The district court erred rights civil litigate his federal institute of law in deter- heavily upon details of the criminal during the claim sufficiency of mining the accrual date and charges. Ques- rights claim. appellant’s federal civil have been prosecutions Until section 1983 should arising tions under concluded, simply impossible to make it is advancing with a view towards answered plaintiff’s reasoned evaluation purpose compensation national Moreover, if such deter- . even claim... deterrence, furthering principles of it would offend possible, mination were allocation comity effecting efficient dis- principle comity federal judicial resources. pending inquire trict into ... pro- strong public policy favor The proceeding. Younger See state criminal remedy whose federal viding a for those Harris, 401 U.S. rights have statutory constitutional (1971).... implementing In acting lawless- deprived by individuals been non-interference, policy a powerful is ly color of state law under practical focus im- courts must great serve one. If the federal courts ruling In any potential ... addi- pact of rights. these purpose, protecting tion, parallel proceeding represents a such Supreme has reminded us that Court judicial over-extended already drain on broadly con- rights legislation to be . resources... interpreting narrowly By strued. Merola, Martin v. by giving nig- limitation and statutes of “healthy demands 1976). A federalism 1983 federal courts gardly scope section as courts avoid much .. . that necessity of ad- may save themselves possible intruding upon the domain as is plaintiff’s claim of dressing merits responsibility of particularly the which is short- deprivation. But this constitutional Walsh, ...” Williams v. the state courts wrong circuiting federal remedies 558 F.2d 667 statutory as a matter policy, matter of of the civil claim Accrual practical a matter and as construction proceeding conclusion and state between federal relationships judi- allocation of achieves a more efficient courts. issues de- cial resources since identical be re- judgment of dismissal should proceeding need termined in state court relitigated federal court. 28 versed.

Case Details

Case Name: Jerome Singleton v. City of New York, Ronald Salzer and Anthony Dellaventura

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Sep 25, 1980

Citation: 632 F.2d 185

Docket Number: 596, Docket 79-7628

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.