Summary
A § 1983 due process claim for fabrication of evidence accrues when the plaintiff learns of the fabrication and it is used against him, causing a liberty deprivation (e.g., arrest or trial), not upon acquittal; thus, the claim was time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations. A prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a malicious prosecution claim because initiating and pursuing a prosecution is a quintessential prosecutorial function, regardless of any investigatory conduct. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of both claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether McDonough's due process claim based on fabricated evidence was timely under the statute of limitations.
- Whether Smith was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on the malicious prosecution claim.
Holdings
- The §1983 action based on fabrication of evidence accrued when the plaintiff (1) learned of the fabrication and its use against him in criminal proceedings, and (2) was deprived of a liberty interest by his arrest and trial. Because both occurred more than three years before suit, the claim was untimely.
- Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and the malicious prosecution claim relates only to Smith's prosecutorial function, so he is immune.
Key quotations
“We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing inferences from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
“The statute of limitations begins to run on a fabrication of evidence claim under § 1983 when the plaintiff has 'reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.'”
“We thus conclude that, under the circumstances here, the § 1983 action based on fabrication of evidence accrued when McDonough (1) learned of the fabrication of the evidence and its use against him in criminal proceedings, and (2) was deprived of a liberty interest by his arrest and trial.”
“Prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity for their acts that are 'intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process' and their role as advocates, but they receive only qualified immunity for acts that are investigatory in nature.”
Factual background
McDonough was the Democratic Commissioner of the Rensselaer County Board of Elections. In 2009, individuals forged absentee ballot applications and ballots in a primary election. McDonough approved the forged applications, claiming he did not know they were falsified. The plot was discovered, and Smith was appointed as Special District Attorney to investigate and prosecute. McDonough claimed Smith fabricated evidence (forged affidavits, false testimony, faulty DNA methods) and presented it to a grand jury, leading to indictment on dozens of forgery counts. McDonough was tried twice, ending in acquittal on December 21, 2012. He filed this §1983 action on December 18, 2015.
Procedural history
McDonough filed a §1983 action alleging due process violation based on fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution. The district court dismissed the due process claim as untimely and the malicious prosecution claim against Smith on absolute immunity grounds. The district court entered judgment as to Smith under Rule 54(b) and certified for interlocutory appeal.