Document: 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007) Andre WALLACE, Petitioner, v. Kristen KATO et al. No. 05-1240. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 6, 2006. Decided February 21, 2007. *1093 Kenneth N. Flaxman, Chicago, IL, for petitioner. Benna Ruth Solomon, respondents. Counsel Record, Illinois, John J. Bursch, Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Petitioner. Lawrence Rosenthal Chapman University School Law, Orange, California, Counsel, Mara Georges, Corporation the City Deputy Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Chief Assistant Jane Elinor Notz, Respondents. *1094 Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. Petitioner filed suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages an arrest that violated Fourth Amendment. We decide whether his is timely. I On January 17, 1994, Handy was shot to death in city Chicago. Sometime around 8 p.m. two days later, Chicago police officers located petitioner, then 15 years age, and transported him a station questioning. After interrogations lasted into early morning hours next day, petitioner agreed confess Handy's murder. An assistant state's attorney prepared statement this effect, signed it, at same time waiving Miranda rights. Prior trial Circuit Cook County, unsuccessfully attempted suppress house statements as product unlawful arrest. He convicted first-degree murder sentenced 26 prison. direct appeal, Appellate Illinois held had arrested without probable cause, violation People Wallace, 299 Ill.App.3d 9, 17-18, 233 Ill. Dec. 444, 701 N.E.2d 87, 94 (1998). According court (whose determination we are not reviewing here), even assuming willingly accompanied station, presence there "escalated involuntary seizure prior formal arrest." Id., 18, N.E.2d, 94. another round appeals, concluded on August 31, 2001, effect petitioner's illegal been sufficiently attenuated render admissible, see Brown 422 U.S. 590, 95 2254, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975), remanded new trial. Judgt. order reported sub nom. 324 1139, 282 137, 805 756 (2001). April 10, 2002, prosecutors dropped charges against 2, 2003, 1983 several officers, arising from, inter alia, arrest.[1] The District granted summary judgment respondents Appeals affirmed. Seventh Circuit, barred because cause action accrued arrest, when conviction later set aside. Wallace 440 F.3d 421, 427 (2006). certiorari, 547 ___, 126 2891, 165 915 II Section provides federal action, but respects relevant here law looks State which arose. This so length statute limitations: It personal-injury torts. Owens Okure, 488 235, 249-250, 109 573, 102 594 (1989); Wilson Garcia, 471 261, 279-280, 105 1938, 85 254 (1985). *1095 parties agree law, period years. Comp. Stat., ch. 735, 5/13-202 (West 2003). Thus, if began run or he ordered by magistrate, plainly dilatory, according tolling two-plus minority, 5/13-211. But if, dissenting judge argued below, commencement date running governed Court's decision Heck Humphrey, 512 477, 114 2364, 129 383 (1994), may be vacated, case would have timely filed. While never stated expressly, accrual question resolved reference state law. agree, held, F.3d, 424, aware no appeals holding contrary. Aspects rules conforming general common-law tort principles. See Heck, supra, 483, 2364; Carey Piphus, 435 247, 257-258, 98 1042, 55 252 (1978). Under those principles, it "the standard rule [accrual occurs] plaintiff has `a complete present action.'" Bay Area Laundry Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund Ferbar Corp. Cal., 522 192, 201, 118 542, 139 553 (1997) (quoting Rawlings Ray, 312 96, 98, 61 473, 605 (1941)), is, can file obtain relief," Laundry, 542. There dispute could soon allegedly wrongful occurred, subjecting harm detention, limitations normally commence from date. however, refinement considered, common law's distinctive treatment torts false imprisonment, "[t]he. . cause[s] [that] provid[e] closest analogy claims type considered here," 484, 2364. 1 D. Dobbs, Law Torts 47, p. 88 False imprisonment overlap; former species latter. "Every confinement person prison private house, stocks, forcibly detaining one public streets; man lawfully prevent leaving room is." M. Newell, Malicious Prosecution, Imprisonment, Abuse Legal Process 57 (1892) (footnotes omitted). also 7 Speiser, C. Krause, A. Gans, American 27:2, pp. 940-942 (1990). shall thus refer together imprisonment. That proper asserted following reason: sort detention remediable legal process, see, e.g., W. Keeton, R. Owen, Prosser Keeton 11, 54, 119, 885-886 (5th ed.1984); 943-944, allegations before us arise respondents' process 1994. They did warrant subject *1096 ruledictated, perhaps, reality victim able sue while still imprisoned: "Limitations begin alleged ends." 2 H. Wood, Limitation Actions 187d(4), 878 (4th rev. ed.1916); 4 Restatement (Second) 899, Comment c (1977); Underhill, Principles 202 (1881). determine beginning case, must came end. Reflective fact consists ends once becomes pursuant such processwhen, example, bound over magistrate arraigned charges. 39, 74, n. 2; 888; Stephen, Prosecution 120-123 (1888). Thereafter, forms part "entirely distinct" malicious prosecution, remedies accompanied, absence institution process.[2] 885-886; F. Harper, James, O. Gray, 3.9, 3:36 (3d ed.1996); 943-945. "If claim, claim cover up until issuance arraignment, more. From point on, any recoverable based prosecution use judicial rather than itself." 28:15, 80. contention ended upon release custody, after him, rejected. much earlier, initiated begun date, its reason minority.[3] asserts custody circumstances suit, since time. theory complaint initial Amendment wheels motion subsequent detention: led coerced confession, *1097 introduced trial, producing incarceration. As just explained, arraignment attributable other complaintand probably chargeable defendants here. Even assuming, all regarded consequential alter limitations. "Under traditional accrues, commences run, act omission results damages. accrues though full extent injury known predictable." Corman, 7.4.1, 526-527 (1991) omitted); 54 C.J.S., Limitations 112, 150 (2005). Were otherwise, only became satisfied harmed enough, placing supposed repose sole hands party relief. conclude commenced appeared examining Since more elapsed between filing suiteven out count reached majoritythe barred. III end matter, were U.S., compels conclusion accrue him. In prisoner raising which, true, established invalidity outstanding conviction. analogized element favorable termination criminal proceedings. said: "[I]n recover unconstitutional caused actions whose unlawfulness sentence invalid, prove reversed expunged executive order, declared invalid tribunal authorized make determination, called court's writ habeas corpus, 28 2254. A bearing relationship invalidated cognizable 1983." 486-487[, 2364] (footnote rested hoary principle civil appropriate vehicles challenging validity judgments." 486, "`Congress,'" said, "`has determined corpus remedy prisoners attacking their confinement, specific override terms 1983.'" 482, 2364 Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 490, 93 1827, 36 439 (1973)). above excerpts show, deferred play exists "a invalidated," *1098 say, "outstanding judgment." delays what otherwise setting aside extant success impugn. assume that, purposes applied process. 1095-1096. time, existence impugn; indeed, indictment. What seeks, words, adoption goes well beyond Heck: impugn anticipated future cannot brought occurs impracticality should obvious. require (and brings promptly, court) speculate about will brought, result conviction, pending verdict, 487, 7,  hardly evidence possession. And (or guesses wrong, occurs, acquittal dismissal? Does event (instead Heck-required conviction) trigger action? Or occurswhat then? disposed embrace bizarre extension Heck. If files related rulings likely made trial), within power district court, accord with practice, stay likelihood ended. id., 487-488, 8, (noting "abstention response parallel state-court proceedings"); Quackenbush Allstate Ins. Co., 517 706, 730, 116 1712, 135 (1996). ultimately convicted, stayed dismissal; proceed, absent some bar suit. Edwards Balisok, 520 641, 649, 117 1584, 137 906 (1997); complication address arises actions, unlike took model, sometimes ofindeed, of course here, raises whether, takes obtained, valid tolled long subsists. context case: 19, 1996, (possibly) impugning yet-to-be-filed aside, generally referred rules, statutes limitation. Hardin Straub, 490 536, 538-539, 1998, 104 582 Board *1099 Regents Univ. N.Y. Tomanio, 446 478, 484-486, 100 1790, 64 (1980). our attention, nor of, cases providing remotely comparable circumstances. (Indeed, argue supported suggestion oral argument.) Nor inclined adopt effect. regime, newly entered impugned not-yet-filed, utterly indeterminate, claim.[4] desirable place vel non jurisprudential limbo, events, pronouncing retroactively. Defendants need notice preserve normal needed defense; retroactively extended, crafting conviction-impugning repose.[5] BREYER argues dissent equitable apply "so issues [a 1983] raise being pursued court." Post, 1104. know support (nor *1100 does suggest any) far-reaching proposition avoid risk concurrent litigation. best tell, rationale concern "petitioner divide attention cases." 1102. defendant, potential absolved responsibilities him? defendant breach-of-contract prime contractor home, entitled pending? Equitable rare unusual circumstances, cure-all entirely affairs. Besides never-heard-of-before quality, dissent's proposal suffers ironic flaw. Although criticizes having develop system stays dismissals, obvious omnibus solution same. Despite rule, (if most) plaintiffs nevertheless during How propose handle suits? Finally, enforcement prefer possibility immediate filing, post 1104, both implausible contradicted who best. fewer 11 States informed litigation, "States municipalities strong interest misconduct agents." Brief Amici Curiae 18. * hold Amendment, where followed proceedings, begins claimant detained occurred (with plaintiff's minority) filed, ordered. STEVENS, whom SOUTER joins, concurring judgment. do disagree conclusion, reach route. issue distinct consequences petitioner: First, provided second, objection admissibility certain crux argument claim. majority note, "in seeks consider favor *1101 necessarily imply sentence; would, dismissed unless demonstrate already invalidated." Relying principle, contends dropped. Unlike majority, my analysis depend analogies.[1] Instead, nine Justices unanimously agreed, required reconcile statute.[2] concluding Heck's found affords "`appropriate confinement.'" Given Stone Powell, 428 465, 481-482, 96 3037, 49 1067 (1976), provide available first place, postpone claim.[3] So kind completion 731, (1996); cf. Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669 (1971), am basis *1102 completed. regrettably lets perfect become enemy good. eschews reasoning "[f]ederal petitioners succeeded arguing Stone's prohibition apply." Ante, 1099, 5 (emphasis added). However, vast cases, "an opportunity fair litigation claim," Stone, apply. always possible find aberrant examples craft needle haystack area like this. BREYER, GINSBURG dissenting. postponed (1994). rest STEVENS Federal might E.g., stay, litigant attendant risks loss energy inconsistent findings. holding, simply leads happen when, problem prevents considering merits insistence uncertain stays, refiling. (majority opinion); ante, 1101-1102 (STEVENS, J., judgment). well-established tool better deal problems presented Where "plaintiff disability, irremediable lack information, control reasonably expected time," courts doctrine "equitable tolling." Miller Runyon, 77 189, 191 (C.A.7 1996) (Posner, C.J.). tolls disabling circumstance overcome. (This why falsely ends. His certainly because, recognizes, immediately so. 1095-1096, 3.) 191; Cada Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450-453 1990). particular, behavior complains was, be, necessary toll period: (1) they acquitted (2) thereafter challenges (on collateral challenge, habeas) underlying ground overturning difficult understand rejects tolling" *1103 regard typical plaintiffs. 1098-1099. alternativefile (including potentially Heck-barred claims) seek dismissal refilingsuffers serious practical disadvantages. For thing, approach force lest lose due protracted another, often dismiss grant litigated proceeding (Was Constitution violated? Was violation-related conviction?). (say, constitutional central bind review. Because this, linger docket forced file) wishes interfering proceedings therefore reaching, threshold inquiry well. these difficulties. obviates permits winnow wheat chaff, thereby increase constitutionally meritless (in action) light day. Allen McCurry, 449 90, 95-96, 101 411, 66 308 (1980) (federal gives preclusive determinations court). Moreover, appellate attacks, Of course, ordinarily borrows principles 1988(a). place. given lacks provision, view, devise impose 538-540, (1989) ("[G]aps rights acts filled law" "chief goals compensation deterrence subsidiary uniformity federalism" omitted)); 997 355, 358 1993) J.) (articulating regime claims), aff'd grounds, 489, Cf. temporal conflict consistent with, further, 1983's basic purposes. orderly adjudication, minimize determinations, clogging unnecessary "protective" filings, and, all, assure possesses meritorious pursuit designed free compromise ability redress wrong described *1104 "place" "question" "jurisprudential limbo." 1099. propose, 1102-1103, knows court. Such prophylactic (it Heck), neither plaintiff, way context. seems me create greater sets out, whereby suits immediately, stayed, dismissed, refiled tolling, 4. acknowledges protect previously dismissed. Ibid. Why across board? suggests proposed significant notice. 1100. itself claims. similar reasons, individual defendants, charge. not, believe many forgo notice, comes pricetag attachedthe price sued lawsuit, rife delays, (as winnowed suggested system, produce instances lawsuit initially And, approaches, involve bar, proceed (for asserting challenge conviction). My lies barred) immediatelyeven proceed. With rarely choose pending; could, wished, prejudice, secure knowledge refusal admit means large numbers arguable issues, matter how claims; endlessly then, future, again. once, meritless, promptly litigated. difficulties approach, now, advance, along lines described. *1105 fully argued, vacate Circuit's remand consideration raise. respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] All adversely us. expressly limited certiorari false-arrest 2891 longer [2] explored contours malicious-prosecution Albright Oliver, 510 266, 270-271, 275, 807, (1994) (plurality opinion), Schwartz, Litigation 3.18[C], 3-605 3-629 ed.2004) range approaches lower courts). Assuming deciding one. include complaint. abandoned state-law Court, stated, opposition judgment, "Plaintiff 1983," Doc. 3, 5. told "mistaken characterizing involving `unwarranted prosecution.'" Reply 12. [3] injured suffered moment bring Adler Beverly Hills Hospital, S.W.2d 153, 156 (Tex.Civ.App.1980) ("We concede imprisoned right day detention"). [4] Had limitations, obtained reversal allowed refile immunity liability, surely intended. period, decide, done so, removed. [5] reaches come violation, [petitioner] place." 1101 (opinion reads say does. violations habeas, failed claim." 3037. See, Herrera Lemaster, 225 1176, 1178 (2000), point, 301 1192, 1195, (C.A.10 2002) (en banc); ex rel. Bostick Peters, 3 1023, 1029 1993); Agee White, 809 1487, 1490 (C.A.11 1987); Doescher Estelle, 666 285, 287 (C.A.5 1982); Boyd Mintz, 631 250-251 (C.A.3 1980); Hertz Liebman, Habeas Corpus Practice Procedure §§ 27.1-27.3, 1373-1389 ed.2005). At prospective receive litigate remains possible, must, Insofar received equally untenable. impossible predict true. ended, ongoing; enough. requires "at review." 494-495, 3037 492, (SOUTER, judgment) ("Common-law `starting 1983,' 258, (1978), [a]t consistently refused allow analogies displace statutory analysis, declining import well-settled `if [the statute's] history purpose counsel applying [such rules] actions.' Wyatt Cole, 504 158, 164, 112 (1992)" (brackets original)). 480, ("This intersection most fertile sources federal-court litigation Civil Rights Act 1871, amended, statute, 2254"); 491, ("The observing `this litigationthe 1871,. 2254'"); (THOMAS, concurring) correctly analyses realization 2254'"). Spencer Kemna, 523 1, 978, 140 43 (1998) joined O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, JJ., (concluding statute); ibid. (GINSBURG, ("I SOUTER's reasoning: Individuals recourse `in custody' fit `broad reach'"); 25, 978 dissenting) ("Given perfectly clear, explains, 1983").

Category: 1