Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan

• Decision Date: 17 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-5451,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,98-5451
• Parties: (6th Cir. 1999) ALI SHAMAEIZADEH,, v. JOEL CUNIGAN; MARK WILES; ASSISTANT CHIEF WAYNE GRANT; SAM MANLEY; JOHN TELEK; RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF RICHMOND, KENTUCKY, Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 391

182 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 1999)

ALI SHAMAEIZADEH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOEL CUNIGAN; MARK WILES; ASSISTANT CHIEF WAYNE GRANT; SAM MANLEY; JOHN TELEK; RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF RICHMOND, KENTUCKY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

No. 98-5451

U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Argued: March 17, 1999

Decided and Filed: July 01, 1999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. No. 97-00121--Karl S. Forester, District Judge.

David R. Marshall (argued and briefed), Lexington, Kentucky, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas L. McSwain (argued and briefed), David B. Pearce (briefed), Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, Lexington, Kentucky, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Jones, Contie, and Moore, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Karen Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge.

Ali Shamaeizadeh brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages related to an allegedly illegal search of his house by state officials and subsequent criminal proceeding by federal prosecutors. The criminal charges brought against Shamaeizadeh were eventually dismissed. The district court found that Shamaeizadeh's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

Shamaeizadeh claims that his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when police officers employed by the City of Richmond, Kentucky, searched his residence at 121 Millstone Road (hereinafter "Millstone") in Richmond on March 14, 1994. As a result of this allegedly unconstitutional search and the subsequent seizure of property from the residence, claims Shamaeizadeh, he was arrested and prosecuted in federal court, incurring large expenses and a myriad of other tangible and intangible damages.

The facts leading up to this case have been set out previously by this court in a published opinion, see United States v. Shamaeizadeh, 80 F.3d 1131 (6th Cir. 1996), and will thus be appropriately limited here. On the date of the search, Shamaeizadeh was living with his fiancee Theresa Schmitt, in the upper level of a two-level house that Shamaeizadeh owned. Brian Reed and Joe Ford lived in the lower level of the house.

On the evening of March 14, 1994, Schmitt called the police alleging that a burglary had taken place on the premises. Officer Mark Wiles of the Richmond Police Department responded to the call. Schmitt asked Wiles to search the house. He first searched the upper level. During the search, Wiles noticed a broken door that led to the lower-level apartment. Schmitt claimed she had broken the door in order to use the telephone of the lower-level apartment. Wiles also detected the smell of marijuana. Wiles then went onto a deck overlooking the back yard. Schmitt remained inside, entered the lower-level apartment, and exited from it into the back yard. She then asked Wiles to search the lower-level apartment. She explained that the two occupants were away. Wiles searched the lower level.

Wiles did not find anything of import in the lower-level apartment. Many of the doors were locked. He did, however, further detect the smell of marijuana. He thus called the Assistant Police Chief, Wayne Grant, for assistance. Grant arrived, and without requesting permission Wiles and Grant proceeded to search both levels of the house. They discovered marijuana cigarette butts in an ashtray in the lower level. They then found a box of fluorescent light bulbs and noticed that fluorescent lighting turned on and off intermittently in one of the locked rooms. They suspected that the lights were being used to grow marijuana. They called in Officer Joel Cunigan, a trained and experienced detector of marijuana, and Sergeant Sam Manley.

Grant, Manley, and Cunigan searched Millstone for a third time. Cunigan thought that there was a strong smell of marijuana in the lower-level apartment, and he discovered a hemostat, rolling papers, and a bag of catnip that he thought was marijuana. Schmitt, after being advised of her rights, told the officers she thought Reed and Ford were growing marijuana in the lower-level apartment.

Cunigan secured a search warrant from a county district-court Judge. The officers executed the search warrant, forcibly entering the locked rooms of the lower level, and seized 393 marijuana plants and various marijuana-growing equipment. The officers arrested Shamaeizadeh, Reed, and Ford, who were later indicted under federal drug laws 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1). Shamaeizadeh was further charged with using Millstone to commit or facilitate the drug violations under 21 U.S.C. § 853, for which the property would be subject to forfeiture.

Upon a motion to suppress the seized evidence,¹ the district court Judge, adopting a magistrate Judge's report, found the first warrantless search constitutional due to "exigent circumstances." The Judge concluded that the second and third warrantless searches violated the Fourth Amendment, however, and redacted the portions of Cunigan's affidavit used to secure the search warrant that referred to evidence obtained during the second and third warrantless searches. The district Judge concluded that the redacted affidavit did not provide probable cause to support a search warrant for the lower level of the apartment.

The government appealed to this court, arguing that even the redacted affidavit supported the issuance of a search warrant for both levels of the house. In a published opinion, this court disagreed. See Shamaeizadeh 80 F.3d at 1138-39. The Sixth Circuit opinion was filed on April 9, 1996, and the government dismissed the charges against Shamaeizadeh on that day. Shamaeizadeh filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 8, 1997. The district court, applying Kentucky's one-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions, found that the limitations period began to run on the date of the search, not the date the criminal charges against Shamaeizadeh were dismissed. The district court then dismissed Shamaeizadeh's § 1983 claim as untimely.

Shamaeizadeh appealed. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) & (4).

II.

The issue before the court is the date on which the statute of limitations begins to run for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions claiming an alleged unconstitutional search and seizure. Although this issue is a matter of federal law, we apply the relevant state statute of limitations for personal injury actions absent special circumstances. See Kuhnle Brothers, Inc. v. County of Geauga, 103 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 1997). We agree that Kentucky's one-year statute-of-limitations period for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 claims of this type. See Collard v. Kentucky Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir. 1990). Typically the statute of limitations for filing an action alleging an unconstitutional search and seizure begins to run at the time of the injury -- when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know about the occurrence of the unconstitutional search. See Kuhnle Brothers, Inc., 103 F.3d at 520 (stating that "[o]rdinarily, the limitations period starts to run 'when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action'" (quoting Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir. 1984)). In light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), however, the resolution of this issue is more complicated.

In Heck, an inmate in a state prison brought a § 1983 action against two state prosecutors and a state police investigator, claiming that the defendants knowingly destroyed exculpatory evidence and caused the use of an illegal voice-identification procedure at trial. Heck sought compensatory and punitive damages but did not ask for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that Heck could not recover damages under § 1983 because his conviction had not "been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 487. The holding was premised, in part, on the Court's attempt to square "the two most fertile sources of federal-court prisoner litigation -- the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Id. at 480.

The Supreme Court had previously held in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), "that habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983." Heck, 512 U.S. at 481 (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-90). Despite the fact that damages are not allowable in a habeas corpus proceeding, the Court in Heck nevertheless held that awarding damages in a § 1983 action would, in certain cases, "necessarily demonstrate[] the invalidity of the conviction." Id. at 481-82. The Court, noting that § 1983 is a species of tort liability, and that the federal courts have often looked to common law to frame the boundaries of a § 1983 suit, analogized § 1983 actions to the common law cause of action for malicious prosecution. Adopting an element of a prima-facie claim for malicious prosecution -- "termination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the accused," id. at 484 -- the Court held that Heck's § 1983 claim against the state officials was not cognizable in the face of his still-outstanding conviction.

The Supreme Court's opinion in Heck included a caveat. The Court wrote: "[I]f the district court determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal...