Wallace v. Kato

Browse related cases: U.S. Supreme Court (78) · False Arrest (70) · Dismissed Cases (69) · Landmark Decisions (90)

What Happened

In January 1994, Chicago police detectives arrested Andre Wallace, then 15 years old, for a murder. He was taken to the station and, after hours of interrogation, signed a statement confessing. He was tried and convicted. On appeal, the Illinois courts held that the detectives had arrested Wallace without probable cause and that his statements were the product of that unlawful arrest. The conviction was reversed. On April 10, 2002, prosecutors dropped the charges.

On April 2, 2003, Wallace sued the detectives under § 1983 for false arrest. Illinois has a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. The defendants argued the claim was time-barred because it had accrued in 1994, when Wallace was arrested and then brought before a judge. Wallace argued it accrued in 2002, when the charges were dropped.

The district court and the Seventh Circuit agreed with the defendants.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court affirmed. Justice Scalia wrote for the Court.

Accrual is a question of federal law. Although § 1983 borrows the state’s personal-injury limitations period, when the claim accrues is decided by federal common law. Under the standard rule, a claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.

A false-arrest claim accrues when legal process begins. The Court looked to the common-law tort of false imprisonment. That tort ends when the victim is held pursuant to legal process, for example when he is bound over by a magistrate or arraigned. In the Court’s words, “[l]imitations begin to run against an action for false imprisonment when the alleged false imprisonment ends.” After that point, any continued detention is a different claim, malicious prosecution, with different elements. So Wallace’s false-arrest claim accrued in 1994, when he appeared before a judge, and the two-year period ran long before he sued.

Heck does not delay accrual for a future conviction. Wallace argued that under Heck v. Humphrey, his claim could not accrue while a conviction stood that his suit would impugn. The Court rejected that argument as applied to a conviction that did not yet exist at the time of accrual. Heck bars claims that would impugn an existing conviction. It does not create a rule that a claim is deferred until some anticipated future conviction is set aside.

The court may stay the civil case. The Court acknowledged the practical problem. A plaintiff who must sue within two years of arraignment may have to file while the criminal case is still pending. The answer is that “it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” If the plaintiff is then convicted and the civil claim would impugn the conviction, Heck requires dismissal.

What It Means in Practice

Wallace sets the trap that catches many pro se plaintiffs. People assume the clock on a false-arrest claim starts when the charges are dismissed. It does not. It starts at the first court appearance after arrest, which is usually within a day or two of the arrest itself.

In a two-year state like Texas, that means a false-arrest suit must be filed within two years of arraignment, even if the criminal case is still pending. Waiting for the criminal case to end is the most common way this claim is lost.

How You Can Use It

• File on time, then ask for a stay. If your criminal case is still pending when the two years are running out, file the § 1983 complaint and move to stay the civil case until the criminal case is resolved. Wallace expressly endorses this.
• Separate the claims. False arrest covers detention from arrest to the start of legal process. Detention after that is malicious prosecution, which accrues later, at favorable termination. See Thompson v. Clark. Plead both when the facts support both, and calculate each deadline separately.
• Know the accrual event for each count. A fabricated-evidence claim accrues at favorable termination under McDonough v. Smith. An excessive-force claim accrues on the day of the force. Do not assume one date fits all counts.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• The two-year trap. If your first court appearance was more than two years before you filed, expect a limitations defense on the false-arrest count and expect it to succeed unless tolling applies.
• Recharacterization. Defendants may argue that your “malicious prosecution” claim is really a false-arrest claim in disguise, and therefore time-barred. Plead the post-arraignment detention and prosecution facts separately so the distinction holds.

How to counter: Calculate the deadline from the arraignment date, not the dismissal date. Read Statute of Limitations and Tolling in a Section 1983 Case. If you are already past two years, look hard at state tolling rules before you give up, and make sure any malicious-prosecution or fabricated-evidence theory is pleaded as its own count with its own, later accrual date.