## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2056 C HRISTO PH ER P ARISH, et al., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. C ITY OF E LKH ART, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 07- cv-452

—RudyL ozano, Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 30, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UMa nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . In thi s ca se, we are con fro n ted w i th the questi on o fwh en cl ai m s o fpol i ce m i sco nd uct r es ul tingi n f al se a r r es t, f al se i m pr i so nm en t, a nd i nt en t i o n a l i n fl i c t i o n o fe mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s ( “ I I E D” ) , a c c r ue f orthe pu rpos e o fthe gene ra l two- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tati on i n I nd i ana. A fterse rv i ng ei ght ye ars o fa thi rtyyear p rison sen ten ce for atte m p ted m urd er, plaintiff

appell ant, Chri sto p h er Par i sh, was re l eas ed fro m pri son2 N o. 09

- 2056

Be c a u s e th i s a p p e a l s t e ms fr o m a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s , we 1 ta k e th e fac ts fro m th e co m p la i n t a s t ru e. John son v . R i vera , 2 7 2 F .3d 51 9 , 52 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 1 ). and the char ges were dropped. A fterhi s r el eas e, Par i sh filed a com pla i nt ag ai nst the Ci ty ofEl khar t a nd se ver al o ffi c e r s wh o w o r k e d th e c a s e . P a r i s h b r o u g h tt wo cl ai m s under § 1 983 f orvi ol atio n s ofhi s co nsti tuti onal ri ghts and thre e cl ai m s f orvi ol ati ons ofhi s right s under state l aw . Th e d istri ct cou rt dism issed allof Pa rish’s sta te l aw cl ai m s o n the gr ound th at they w er e ba rr ed by I nd i ana’ s s tatute o fl i m itati ons. I nherenti n that deci si on w as the r uling tha t the cl ai m s a ccr ued at the ti m e o f ar re st and at the t im e P ar i sh was hel d overf ortr i al ra therthan at the t i m e Par i sh was exoner ate d. Pari sh appe a l s . We a ffi r m th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o ft he f al se ar re st and f al se i m pri sonm ent c l ai m s. W e r eve rs e the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s mi s s a l o fP a r i s h’ s c l a i m f o r I I ED.

I . B a c kg r o und 1 O n the eve ni ng o fOctobe r 29, 19 96, M i chaelKershner w as sh otin t h e a b d om en ou t s id e h is m ot h er ’s h om e in Elkhurst, I nd i ana. W hen the pol i ce a rr i ved a t the s cene, Ker shne r ’ s f ami l y t o l d the offi ce r s th atthe s ho o ting o c c u r r e d i ns ide th e hom e d uring a hom e invasion
. Th ere w as no e vi dence ofa h om e invasi on be cause none t oo k pla ce; the shoo ti ng o ccurr ed i n a par ki ng l ot du ri ng a drug deal

. S ti l l, despi te a l ack ofcorro bor ati ng ev i dence the pol i ce purs ued the hom e invasi on theor y. Par i sh w as a r r e s t e d a nd t r i e d o n the the o r y tha t he wa s o ne o fN o. 09

- 2056 3 tw o i nd i vi du al s w ho bro ke i nto the hom e and sho t Ker shne r . At t r i al, Pa r i shi nt r o duce d e vi den ce th at he w as in I ll inois at th e tim e of th e shoot ing an d therefore could n ot h ave com m i tte d thi s cr i m e. Par i sh di d not chal l enge the s tat e’ s e vi dence r ega rdi ng the l oca ti on o fthe s ho o tingo r the c i r cumst an ce s su r r o und i ngthe sh ooting. Th e j ur y f ou nd Parish gu il ty an d the cou rt se nt en ce d Pa r i sht o thi r tyy ea r s i n pr i so n. I n 2 00 6, a fte r e i g hty ea r s o fpo st
- co nv i cti on l i ti g at i o n, Pari sh’ s co nvict ion was va cate d. Du ri ng the post
- convi cti on l i ti gat i on, ev i dence cam e o ut thatthe shoo ti ng o ccurr ed outs i de ofthe hom e a nd thatt h e p oli ce c oer ced seve ral w itness es into iden tifying Pa rish as t h e shoot er. The I nd i ana Courto f A pp eal s r eve rs ed the denia l o f Pari sh’ s peti ti on f or post- convi cti on re l i ef and the st ate th endr o pped th e ch ar g es . S ho r tl y the r ea fte r, Pa r i sh, Pari sh’ s chi l dren, Par ish’s fi ancée, and Pari sh’ s m othe r fi l ed sui t a gai ns t the Ci ty ofEl khar t a nd thr ee f or m er offi cer s o fthe ci ty’ s pol i ce depar tm ent. The ke y f actual alle ga tio n in t h e c om p lain tis : “A lm os t im m ed iat ely afterthe K er shner shoo ti ng, defendants Rezutk o, A bro se, C ut ler, and the oth er l aw enforcem en t d efend an ts d eterm i ne d t o f a l s e l y i mpl i c a t e P a r i s h a nd t o b ui l d a f al se case ag ai nst hi m , with th e aim o fse curi ng hi s f al se ar r e s ta nd the n hi s f a l s e i mpr i s o nme nt
. ” ( Co mpl a i nt, ¶ 16.) The co m pla i nt furtheral l ege s that t o acco m pli sh these go al s, “the o ffi c er s u sed i m properand sugg est i ve i nt er vi ew a nd pho to i den ti fi ca ti o n t ec hni que s, m an ipul ate d w i tness es, thr eat ened orco er ced w i tness es, enga ged i n sta gi ng a cri m e s cene i n K er shner’s m ot her’ s a partm en t, an d fu rt h er fab ric at ed an d d es tr oy ed ev id en c e.”4 N o. 09

- 2056

Bec aus e the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s Se pt em ber 5, 20 08 , Ord er did n ot 2 d ispo se of the en tire case

— at le ast one § 1983 cla im rem ained f or further adjud ic ati on in the t ri al court

— the d efend an ts sou g h t ce rt ific ati on of the O rder dis m is si ng the s tat e l aw c l ai m s a s a fi nalj udgm en tpur s uan tt o Rul e 54 ( b) ofthe Fed eral Ru le s ofCiv il Proce du re. The d is tr ic t c ourt grante d the c er t i fi c at i on. ( Compl aint, ¶ 1 7. ) Cr uci alt o o ura na l y si s, the c o m pl aint al so al l ege s that, i n car ry i ng o ut thes e a cts, “the l aw enf or cem ent de fendants k ept se cre t a nd f ai l ed to d isc los e w h at th ey h ad d on e o r h ow th ey h ad d on e it .” (C om p lain t, ¶ 20 .) Pari sh’ s co m pla i nt al l ege d tw o § 1 983 cl ai m s ( denia l o f the rig ht to a f ai r tr i aland f al se ar re st) and f our supp l em entalst ate l aw cl aim s ( f al se ar re st, f al se i m pri sonm ent, I I ED , and m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on)
. Defendants m ove d to di smi ss a l l o fthe c l ai m s. Pa r i shdi d no t ch all en ge the m o ti o n t o di smiss th e § 19 83 f al se a r r es t cl ai m o r the state l aw m ali cious p rosecu tion c lai m . Th e d istri ct cou rt den ied t he m oti on t o dism i ss w i th r ega rd to the § 1 983 den i al ofa f ai r t r i alc l ai m . The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the m oti on t o dism i ss w i th r ega rd to the sta te l aw cl ai m s f or f al se ar r es t, f al se i m pr i so nm en t, a nd I I ED o n the g r o und th atthe y a r e ti m e-ba r r ed. Pa r i shi ni ti al l y a ppea l ed th e di smi ss alo fa l l s ta te l aw c l ai m s. H oweve r, a t o r ala r g u- 2 m en t P ar is h c on c ed ed th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly f o und tha t th e cl ai m s f o r f al se a r r es t an d f al se i m pr i so nm en t wer e ti m ed-ba r r ed. The r efo r e, the o nl y r emai ni ng iss u e in th is ap p ea l is w h et h er th e d ist ric t cou rtp ro p er ly d i s mi s s e d th e I I E D c l a i m.N o. 09

- 2056 5 I I . Discussi on W e revi ew a n a ppea l fr o m a mot i o n t o di smi ss pur su an t t o Fe d . R. C iv. P
. 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d e n ov o. Jo hn son v. R ivera , 272 F.3 d 519, 52 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. W hen r evi ew i ng a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s , w e a c c e p ta l l f a c t s a l l e g e d i n th e c o mp lain t a s t ru e a n d d ra w all rea so n ab le in fer e n c es in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o t h e p lain tiff. Id. W hether the c l ai m f orI I ED i s barre d by I nd i ana’ s t w o- yea r sta tute of lim ita tio n s, w h i c h w ou ld m ak e d ism iss al of t h e c laim ap p ro p ria te , i s t h e o n ly iss u e o n ap p ea l. B ec au se th is i s a st at e l aw c l ai m , we appl y I ndi an a l aw r eg ar di ng the s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons and any r ule s th at ar e a n integralpa r t o fthe s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns , s ucha s to l l i ng an d eq u it a b l e e st op p el. Hol l an de rv . Brown , 45 7 F
. 3d 688, 69 4 (7t h Cir

. 20 06)
. The part i es agr ee that the t i m el i ness ofPar i sh’ s cl ai m i s g ove rned byI nd i ana Code 34

- 11- 2- 4, wh i c h r e q u i r e s th a ta n a c t i o n b e b r o u g h twi th i n t wo y ea r s o fthe da te o n whi chthe a ct i o n a cc r ue d. I fthe cl ai m acc rued atthe ti m e o far re st, then thi s cl ai m i s t i m eba r r ed. Ifth e cl ai m a cc r ue d a t th e ti m e Pa r i shwas e xo ne r at ed , th is c l ai m i s no t ti m e-ba r r ed. W e ta k e o ur in q u iry in t w o s te p s. Firs t, w e d et er m in e, fro m a p u re ly l eg al st andp oi nt, wh en a cl ai m f orI I ED acc rues under In d ian a la w . Th en w e t u rn t o t h e s p ec ific fa c ts of th is case and applythatr ule

.
A . Th e Leg al Pri ncipl es Governing W hen a C laim f or I I ED A ccrues The r e ar e fo urc as es tha t ar e di r ec tl y r el ev an t to the an al y si s o fwhen a c la i m f o r I I ED a cc r ue s unde r I ndi an a6 N o. 09

- 2056

A lthoug h the Indiana Sup rem e Co urt has not direct ly ru le d 3 on thi s i s s ue, we fi nd th e d ecis i ons ofthe I ndi ana Cour tof A pp ea ls on thi s is sue pers uasi ve authority on the approach th e h ig h c o u r t w o u ld ta k e. Se e M a he rv. Har r i s Tr us ta nd Sa vi ngs Ban k, 50 6 F .3d 56 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ). l aw. Two ca se s co m e f r o m the S upr em e Co ur t o fthe U n i t e d Sta te s: Heckv. H um ph rey, 5 12 U. S
. 4 77( 19 94 ) , a nd Wallacev. Ka to , 5 4 9 U
. S
. 38 4 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. T wo c a s e s c o me fro m th e In d ian a c ou rt s: Sc r ugg s v. A l l e n Coun ty/ City of For tWayne, 8 29 N
. E
. 2d 10 49 ( I nd. Ct
. App. 2 00 5) , a nd Johnson v. B la ckw el l , 885 N
. E
. 2d 25 (Ind

. Ct
. A p p . 2008). 3 W e r evi ew thes e ca ses i n ch ro n olo gi calo rderbec ause each c ase i s info rm ed by the pr ecedi ng ca ses . I n Heckv. H um ph rey, the Suprem e C ourtaddress ed the i ssue ofwh etheran ind i vi du alco nvi cted ofa sta te crim e cou ld bring a § 1983 claim agains t th e prose cu tors and in vesti gat or s invol ved w i th the st ate co nvi cti on f or en gaging i n an “u nlaw ful, un reason able, an d a r b itrary i nv es ti g at i o n” l eadi ngt o the pl aint i ff’ s ar r es t, de st r o y i ng excul pator y e vi denc e, and em plo yi ng an i l l ega l vo i ce i denti fi cati on pro ced ure at tr i al, wh i l e the st ate co nvi cti on was st i l l val i d. 512 U
. S. 477 . T h e Cour t f ound that the pet i ti onerco u ld n ot p ursue the § 19 83 acti on be cause th e § 19 83 a ct i o n s er ve d a s a co ll ateral at ta cko n the convi cti on th rough a proce du re o therthan habeas c or p u s. Id. at 485. T o arrive at th is hold ing, t h e C ou rt spe ci fi ca l l y a na l y ze d the c l ai m s i n the c om p la i nta nd f ound that the cla im s di re ctl y a tta cked the va l i dity o f th e c on vic tio n . Id. a t 48 6- 87
. The Court anal o g i ze d theN o. 09

- 2056 7 cl ai m s to the c o m m o n l aw t o r t o f m al i ci o us pr o se cut i o n. Id. at 484. Fo l l owing the c om m on l aw pri nci ple th at a pla i nti ffcannotbr i ng a cl ai m f orm al i ci ous pr ose cuti on un tilt h e p riorcrim inal procee d ings ha ve bee n term inated i n hi s f avo r, the Court f ound that the pla i n tiff in Heckco u ld n otbr in g t h e c l a i m s in h is c om p lain t u n til h is c on vic tio n h ad be en ov er tu rn ed

. Id. T h e C ourtcar efull y l i m i ted i ts hol ding to cl ai m s that di re ctly at tack th e va l i di tyo fthe c o nv i ct i o n: W e h old th at, in ord er to rec ov er d am ag es for a lleg ed ly unconsti tu ti onalco nvi cti on o r i m pri sonm ent, o r f or othe r harm cause d by a cti ons w hose unl aw fulne ss w oul d rendera convi cti on o r sente nce i nval i d, a § 19 83 p l ai nti ffm ust pro ve that the c onvi cti on o r sente nce ha s be enr ev er sed on di r ec t appe al, e xpung ed bye xecuti ve or der, decl ar ed i nval i d by a st ate tr ibunal author i zed to m ake such dete rm inati on, o r cal l ed i nto questi on bya federa l co urt’ s i ssuance ofa w ri t o f habeas co rpus, 28 U
. S.C. § 2 254. A cl ai m f ordam age s bear i ng tha t r el ati onshi p to a co nvi cti on o r sent en ce th at h as n otbe en so inv alid at ed i s n otco gn iza b le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3
. T h u s , w h e n a s t a t e p r i s o n e r s e e k s d a mage s in a § 1 983 sui t, the dist ri ct c ourtm ust co nsi der w h et h er a j u d gm en t in fav or of th e p lain tiff w ou ld neces sa ril y i m plythe i nval i dity o fhi s co nvi cti on o r senten c e; i fi t would, the com pla i nt m ust be di sm i ss ed unl es s the pl aint i ffc ande m o ns tr at e th atthe c o nv i c t i o n o r s e nt e nc e h a s a l r e a dy b e en i nv a l i da t e d. B ut i f th e d istri ct cou rt de term ines th at p la intiff’s ac ti o n, e ve n i fs ucc es sful, wi l l no t d emon st r at e th e i nv al i di tyofa ny o ut st an di ngc r i m i na l j udg m en t8 N o. 09

- 2056 aga i nst the pl ai nti ff, the acti on s houl d be al l owed to p ro c ee d , in th e a b se n c e o f so m e o th er ba r to su it. Heck, 51 2 U.S
. a t 48 6-87. U nd erthe Hec kfram ew or k, a cl ai m thatdi re ctl y a tta cks the v al i dity o fa convi cti on c an n otac c ru e u n til aft er th e c on vic tio n h a s b e e n te rm ina ted i n a m an ne r f avorab le to th e plaintiff

. The I nd i an a court s a dopted the Hec kfram ew or k in Sc r ugg s , 8 29 N. E. 2d 10 49
. I n Sc r ugg s , se ver alcr i m i nal defen dan ts broug ht a c i vi l a ct i o n a g ains t th e st at e an d a numbero fs ta te a ct o r s al l eg i ngtha t th ei r i m pr isonm en t viol ated the sta te con stitut ion beca us e the y w ere no t i ndi ct ed b y a g r an d j ur y . 8 29 N. E. 2d at1 05 0. The I ndi an a Cou r t o fAppea ls fo und tha t th e co m pl aint f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r wh i c h r e l i efcoul d b e g r a nt e d. Id. a t 10 52
. The Scru ggs C o u r tb a s e d i t s h o l d i n go n t wo g r o unds : ( 1) the r e was no v i o l at i o n o fthe s ta te c o ns ti tu
ti on be cause the s tat e c on sti tuti on di d not r equi re that an ind ivi d ua l be ind icted th roug h the gr a n d j ury pr o ce ss rathertha n o n i nf o r m at i o n, a nd ( 2) a do pting Heck, th e p lain tiffs co u ld n otm ov e f o r w ar d in t h eir c l a i ms f o r f a l s e i mpr i s o n me n tb e c a u s e th e i r c l a i ms woul d dir ec tl y at ta ckthe val i di tyofthe i r c o nv i ct i o ns a nd they coul d not s how thatthei r convi cti ons had been ove rturned ordi sm i sse d. 829 N
. E.2 d at 1 051. Fol l owing Hecka nd Sc r ugg s , both the Su p rem e C ou rt and th e I nd i ana Courto fA pp eal s r evi si ted the i ssue of cl ai m acc rualf ori nd i vi d u als with c l ai m s o ff al se ar re st and othercl ai m s a sso ci ate d w i th o ver turn ed convi cti ons. I n Wa ll a ce v . Ka to , th e Su p re m e C ou rtfou n d th at a c laimN o. 09

- 2056 9 f o r f al se a r r es t o r f al se im pr i so nm en t ac cr ue s atthe ti m e the i nd i vi du ali s br ought bef or e a m agi stra te o r ar ra i gned on c ha rg es. 54 9 U.S
. 38 4. The Courtappli ed fede ra l co m m on l aw to the questi on o fcl ai m acc rual be ca us e th e pl aint i ff br o ug ht th e cl ai m i n a § 19 83 ac ti o n. Id. at 388. Relyi ng on fede ral com m on law , the Cou rt hel d that the cl ai m ca n n ot accr ue unti l the tor t o ff al se im p ris on m en t e n d s. Id. T h e C o u r t rec og n ize d th at th is ru le m ay be info rm e d by “t h e re alit y t h at th e v ict im m ay not be abl e t o sue whil e he i s s ti l l i m priso n ed

. ” Id. at 390. Th e n, the Co ur t t ur ne d t o the qu e s t i o n o fwh en f al se i m pri sonm ent e nd s: Refl ecti ve ofthe f act that f al se i m pr iso nm ent c onsi sts o fde te nt i o n wi tho utl eg alpr o ce ss , a f al se i m pr i so nm ent e nd s on ce the vi cti m bec om es hel d pu rs uant to such proc ess

— w hen, f orexam ple , he i s bo und o ver by a m agistrate or arraigned on ch arges. Th ereafter, unlawfuldete n tion f or m s par t o fthe dam age s f or th e “e nt i r el y di st i nc t” t o r t o fm ali ci o us pr o se cut i o n, w hi ch r em edi es detenti on a ccom panie d, not by absence ofl ega l pro cess , b u t by wrongful i nsti tuti on o f l ega l pro cess . . . . Thus, peti ti oner ’ s co ntenti on that hi s f al se i m pri sonm ent e nd ed upon his r el eas e fro m custo dy, afterthe St ate dro pp ed the charges ag ai nst hi m , mus tb e r ej e c t e d. I te nd e d muc h e a r l i e r, wh en th e l eg alpr o ce ss was i ni ti at ed ag ains t hi m , a nd the st atut e woul d ha ve b egun t o r un f rom th at dat e, b ut f ori ts tol l i ng byr eas on o fpeti ti oner ’ s m i nor i ty. Wallace, 54 9 U.S
. at38 9. Th e Co ur tdi s t i ngui s he d Wallacefr o m He ck o n the g r o und tha t th e cl ai m i n He ck w as anal ogo us to the tor t t o10 N o. 09

- 2056

m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on rat h erthan f al se i m pri sonm ent. Id. W h ile a c laim of m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n w ou ld in e vitabl y i m pug n a c o nv ictio n, a c l ai m o ff al se i m pr i so nm ent o nl y i m pu gns a n anti ci pated future convi cti on bec au se th e claim en d s w ell before th e con viction oc cu rs ( orbefor e the pl ai nti ffkno w s whether charg es w i l l ev en be purs ued). Our Ci rcui t r ec en tly had cause to i nter pret Wallacei n Evans v. Pos kon , 603 F.3d 3 6 2 ( 7 t h Cir. 2010). I n Evans we c ha r a c t e r i z e d Wallaceas h old in g “ a c laim th ata cc r ue s be f o r e a cr i m inalc o nv i ct i o n may a nd us ua ll y m us t be fil ed w ithou t regard to th e c o nv iction’s val i dity. ” Id. at36 3. T h is d es c rip tio n of th e h o l d i n g in Wa ll acehones i n on the f actualdi sti ncti on be tw een He ck a nd Wallace : the t o r t o ff al se a r r es t is co m pl et e, a nd th er efo re be gin s t o a c c ru e, on c e t h e in d ivid u al is bro ught be f or e a m agi str ate ; the tor t o fm al i ci ous pr osec ut i o n i s no t co m pl et e unt i l a c onv i ct i o n o cc ur s an d th atc o nv i ct i o n h as be eno ve r tu r ne d, a nd the r efo r e th e sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons f orm al i ci ous pr os ecuti on does not b eg in to ac c ru e u n til th at tim e. Id. T h e I n d i a n a C o u r to fAp p e a l s a g a i n a d d r e s s e d the i ss ue o fc l ai m a cc r ua l i n Johnson v. B lackw el l

. 88 5 N
. E.2 d 25. The c o ur t i n Jo h ns on i nt e r pr e t e d Wallacei n much th e s a me wa y we i nt e r pr e t e d Wallacei n Ev a ns . I n Johns on , th e pl aint i ff

- appe l l at e, J o n S. J o hns o n, fi l ed a co m pl aint agains t several m em bers o f th e M ad ison C ou nt y Sheriff’s Dep ar tm en t, al l eging ci vi l r i ghts vi ol ati ons, f al se i m pri sonm ent, f al se arre st, wrongful i nfl i cti on o fem oti onal dist re ss, and i nvasi on o f p rivacy by i ntrusi on. 88 5 N
. E.2 d at2 8. Al th o ug h J o hns o n b r o ug htthe c ivi l s ui t i n Indi an a st at e co urt, the und er l yi ng cr i m i nal char ge w as federa l.N o. 09

- 2056 11 J ohnson had been a rr est ed and convi cted f orposs ess i on wi thi nt en t to di st r ibut e cr ac kc o ca i ne . The a r rest an d convi cti on w er e the r esul t o fan a nonym ous t i p that l ed th e officers ( th e d efend an ts in the civi l su it) to J ohn son ’s house. Th e officers went to J ohnson’ s ho use without a sea rch w ar ra nt
. A t the house , the detect i ves thre ate ned J o hns o n unt i l he al l o wed th em i nt o th e ho m e to se ar ch

. The offi cer s f ound d rugs i n the hom e a nd fed er alchar ges w er e bro ught. J ohnson w as convi cted. Our Courtvac ate d th e co nv i ct i on an d or der ed th e ca se r emande d t o the di st r i ctc o ur t f o r a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i ngo n whe th erthe de t e c t i v e s l a c k e d r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o s e i z e J o h n s o n. The dis tr i ct c ou rt found thatthe offi cer s di d l ack re as o nab l e s us pi c i o n and t he i nd i c t men twa s di s mi s s e d. J o hns o n’ s co m pl ainta g ains t th e o ffi ce r s f o cus ed ex cl usiv ely on th e o ffice rs ’ th re at s t o e n te r th e h ou se an d th eir acti ons w hen theyse ar ched J ohnson’ s ho use and ar re ste d h im w ith ou t p ro b ab le c au se . Joh n so n br ou gh t h i s c laim m o r e th ant wo years a fte r the s ea r cho fhi s ho m e. The I n d i a n a C o u r to fA p p e a l s f o u n d th a tal l o fth e c l a i ms w er e t im e-b ar re d

. Id. The Johns on co urt deter m i ned that I nd i ana’ s t w o- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons, I
. C. 34 -11- 2- 4, go ver ned and then d isc u ss ed w h en th e c laim s a c c ru ed

. Id. at 30. T he cou rt a d o p t e d th e r u l e fr o m Wallacev. Ka to for th e fal s e a rr es t/f al se i m pr i so nm en t cl ai m s an d fou nd tha t th e peri od ofl i m i tat i ons beg an to r un w hen the al l ege d f al se i m pri sonm ent e nd ed

— at the ti m e J ohnson w as ar ra ign ed

. Id. at30
. In a d d re ss in g t h e o th er cla im s (c ivil rig hts v i ol ati ons, wrongful i nfl i cti on o fem oti onal d istress, an d i nv asion of privacy by i nt rus ion), the cou rt12 N o. 09

- 2056

The Su pre m e Cour ti n H ec kenv ision ed claim s su c h a s tho se 4 i n Johnso n a n d s p e c i fi c a l l y s t a t e d th a tth e He c k r e a s o n i ng d id n o t r ea c h t h o se cla im s. H ec k, 51 2 U. S. at48 7 n
. 7 ( “Fo r exam ple, a suitfor d am ages att ribu table to an all egedly unreasonable se arch m ay li e even i fthe c h a lleng ed sear ch prod uced evidenc e that was i ntroduced i n a s tat e c ri m inal tr ial resu lti n g in th e § 19 8 3 p la in tiff’s sti ll-o u tst a n d in g co n v ic tio n .”). f o un d tha tthe y a c c r ue d w hen the h o us e wa s s e a r c he d. Id. a t 31
. Not ab l y, i n a ddr es singthe se c l ai m s th e co urt d i d n o ta p p l y th e s a me b r i g h t
- l i n e r u l e fr o m Wallacethat accr ua l ha ppen s upo n a r r ai g nm en t. I ns te ad, the c o urt appl i ed th e st an dar d di sc o ve r y r ul e fora cc r ua l a nd consi dered wh en the to rto ccurr ed and w hen J ohnson kn ew , or sh ou ld h av e k n ow n, ab o u t th e t or t. Id. T h e o n ly cl ai m ed tor ti ous conduct occur re d duri ng the ti m e of th e i l l eg als ea r ch and J o hns o n was pr es en t f o r the en ti r e dur at i o n o fthe t o r ti o us c o nduc t. T he ref o r e, the co ur t f o und tha t th o se c l ai m s a cc r ue d o n the da y tha t th e se ar ch o cc ur r ed an d J o hns o n co ul d no t be ne fi t from the to llin g d oc tr in e o f co n tin u in g w ro n g. Id. at32
. D efe n d an t s c l a im th at th e In d ian a C ou rtof A p p ea ls in Johns on o ve r r ul ed th ei r e ar l i erde ci si o n i n Sc r ugg s to adopt the Heckreason ing. T ha t is not true. J ohn son ’s cl ai m s d i d not atta ck the val i dity ofthe convi cti on. J ohnson cl ai m ed th atthe wro ng fulc o nduc t ofthe de fen dan t offi cer s was thei r agg re ssi ve behavi orduri ng the se ar ch of h is h ou se . Th es e a lleg at i o n s d o n otam ou n t t o a ch all en g e to the c o nv i ct ion
. As s uch, J o hns o n’ s co m pl aint 4 did noti nvoke the Hec kfra m ew or k a nd we d o n ot r ead the Johns on o pi ni o n t o b e a r e c a nt a t i o n o fI nd i a na ’ s p r i orN o. 09

- 2056 13 adopti on o fHeck

. I nstea d, w e r ead thes e ca ses to r el y o n th e sam e g en er aldi st i nc ti o n we r el i ed o n i n Evans : w hetherthe cl ai m ed to rto ccurr ed and w as com ple ted bef or e co nvi cti on

— as w oul d be the ca se w ith a cl ai m f or f al se ar re st, f al se i m pri sonm ent, o r I I ED r esul ti ng fro m offensi ve behavi or at the ti m e o far re st

— orthe cl ai m ed tor t w as n ot co m ple te pri orto co nvi cti on

— as w oul d be the ca s e wi th a c l a i m f o r ma l i c i o us p r o s e c ut i o n o r I I ED r es ul tingfr o m a ct i o ns tha t l ea d to a f al se co nv i ct i o n. I fthe cl ai m ed to r t o cc ur r ed an d was co m pl et ed be f ore the co nv i ct i o n, s ucha s th e cl ai m s i n Johns on , th e c l a i ms ac c ru e im m ed iat ely u p on th e c om p let ion of th e t or t. If th e cl ai m ed to r t co ntinu ed thr o ug h, o r b ey o nd, the po i nt o fc o n v i c t i o n, th e c o u r tmu s ta s kw h e th e r th e c l a i ms wou l d d i r e c t l y i mpl i c a t e th e v a l i d i t y o fth e c o n v i c t i o n. I fthe cl ai m s would notdi re ctl y i m pli cate the val i dity o f th e con viction , t he cou rt shou ld fol low the sta nd ard disc ove ryr ule appli ed i n I n d iana: The cl ai m acc rues at the t i m e th e indi vi du alknew orsho uld have kno w n of th e t or t. Se eJohns on , 8 85 N. E. 2d at3 0 ( ci tingFil ip v. Block, 87 9 N .E .2d 10 76 , 108 2 (Ind . 200 8)). If th e c laim w ou ld dir ectl y i m pli cate the val i dity o fthe convi cti on, then Hecka nd Scru ggs co m e into pla y a nd the cl ai m does not ac cr ue unt i l the c o nv i ct i o n h as b ee n di spo se d o fi n a m an ne r f avorab le to th e plaintiff

.
B. A p p lying t h e R u le f or II ED Claim A ccru al t o Pa r i s h ’ s C l a i ms To preva i l on a cl ai m f orI I ED under Ind i ana l aw , Par i sh m us t sh o w tha t th e defen dan ts , b y ext r eme oro ut r ag eo us14 N o. 09

- 2056

con d uc t, inten tionally or rec klessly caus ed him severe em ot ion al d i s t re ss . See C ulliso n v . M edley, 57 0 N
. E.2 d 27, 31 ( I nd

. 19 91)
. Par i sh c laim s that o ffi cer s cr eat ed a f ake cri m e s cene, f abr i cate d evi dence, tam pered w i th ev i dence, destr oye d orwithhel d exculpato ryev i dence, ei th er acti vel y s ubor ne d ordel iber ate l y turned a b l i nd ey e t o perj ure d t es ti m o ny, a nd t es ti fi ed f al se l y unde r o ath, l e a d i n gt o h i s w r o n g fu l c o n v i c t i o n . P a r i s h a l s o c l a i ms th atthe o ffi ce r s co ve r ed up the i r a ct i o ns to mai nt ain the continued incarcer ati on o fPar i sh. Fi rs t, l oo ki ng o nl y a t th e ac ti ons ofthe offi cer s, i t i s cl earthatthi s t or t was n otco m p let ed p rior t o th e c on vic tio n . Th e o ffice rs all ege dlyto ok ste ps thr ough a l l st age s of the i nvest i gat i on a nd t r i a l that cum ul a t i v e l y a mou nt e d t o the t o r to fI I ED. A dd i ti onal l y, the convi cti on was an e sse nti alpi ece of thi s t or t be cause i t was the wrongful convi cti on that l ed to the e m oti onalst ra i n and m entalanguis h t h at Pari sh f aced. Theref or e, unli ke the cl ai m ed tor ti ous conduct i n Jo h n s on , whi chwas c o m pl et e i m m edi at el y a fte r the sea rch occur re d, Pari sh’ s c l ai m o fI I ED was not com ple te pri orto the ti m e ofco nvi cti on be cause the c onvi cti on wa s th e c r u x o fth e c l a i m. Tur ni ngt o t he s ec o nd pa r t o fthe a na l y si s, we co nsid er w h et h er th e fa c ts alleg ed to su p p or t P a r i sh ’s c laim o fI I ED di r ec tl y a tt ac kthe val i di tyo fthe c o nv i ct i o n. The HeckCo ur t was e xpl i ci tl y c onc erne d abo uto pen i ngup avenues to chal l enge a co nvi cti on thro ugh m eans othe r than the stat e or federa l l y pr osc ribed channel s, such as habeas co rp u s. Hec k, 51 2 U.S
. at48 2. A t the hear t o f P ar ish ’s com p lain t is a cla im th at th e d efe n d a n toffic er s fa b ric at ed an en tir e c as e a ga in st h im th at led to h isN o. 09

- 2056 15

w ro ngful convi cti on. The f actualal l ega ti ons that Pari sh w as i nnocent and that the o ffi cer s co m m i tte d perj ury, f al si fi ed evidence, co er ced w i tness es to com m i t perj ury, and w i thhel d exculpato ryev i den c e ar e a l l chal l enges to th e c on vi c tio n th at w ou ld on ly h av e b ee n p ro p er w h ile th e co nv i ct i o n was s ti llo ut st an di ngi fPa r i shb r o ug ht them thr ough pro scr ibed post- convi cti on r el i efchannel s. T he refore, u n d e r Ind iana’s ad op tion of Hec k, Par i sh coul d nothave br ought these cl ai m s unti l hi s co nvi cti on w as dispos ed of i n a m anner f avo rabl e to h im . Par i sh b ro u gh t h is c laim w ith in tw o ye ar s o f w h en th e c laim ac cr ue d upo n h i s ex o ne r ation, the r eb y makingthe cl ai m ti m el y.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe re aso ns di scusse d a b ov e, we R EV ERSE the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s di sm i ssa l o fPar i sh’ s I I ED cl ai m . A l so, base d on Par i sh’ s co ncessi on at or alar gum ent, we A FFIRM the di str i ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l o fthe f al se ar re st and fa l se i m pri sonm ent c l ai m s.

7- 30- 10