Woods v. Candela
| Decision Date | 09 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 653,653 |
| Citation | 47 F.3d 545 |
| Parties | Darryl J. WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph CANDELA, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 93-7664. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robert N. Isseks, Goshen, NY (Alex Smith, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Frederic L. Lieberman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, New York City (Dennis C. Vacco, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Albany, NY), of counsel for defendant-appellee.
Before: LUMBARD, KEARSE, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.
This case has been remanded to us by the Supreme Court. Woods v. Candela, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 44, 130 L.Ed.2d 5 (1994). We previously affirmed the district court's dismissal of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, raising claims founded on Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, as barred by New York's three-year statute of limitations. Woods v. Candela, 13 F.3d 574 (2d Cir.1994). The Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), an opinion rendered after our decision.
In Heck, the Supreme Court held that "a Sec. 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated." Heck, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2374. The Court exempted from this rule actions that "even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the plaintiff's conviction was unlawful," id. at ---- n. 7, 114 S.Ct. at 2372 n. 7 (emphasis in original), such as an action founded on an unlawful search whose illegality would not affect the validity of the conviction.
In the present case, the Appellate Division reversed Woods's conviction and dismissed the indictment after ruling that his suppression motion should have been granted, due to defendant Candela's lack of a reasonable suspicion on which to detain and question Woods and thereafter search his vehicle. People v. Woods, 189 A.D.2d 838, 841-43, 592 N.Y.S.2d 748, 750-52 (2d Dep't 1993). As made evident by that decision, Woods's present Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, which rest on the very same grounds, necessarily imply that his conviction was unlawful, and thus could not have been raised prior to the Appellate Division's reversal of his conviction on January 19, 1993. Therefore, under Heck, Woods's Sec. 1983 cause of action for damages arising from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crooker v. Burns
...Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.2000); Schilling v. White, 58 F.3d 1081, 1086 (6th Cir. 1995); Woods v. Candela, 47 F.3d 545, 546 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam); Mackey v. Dickson 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.1995))). The First Circuit has not weighed in on this Defendants do not a......
-
Preston v. New York
...§ 1983 claim based on a malicious prosecution arises on the date that an unconstitutional conviction is invalidated. See Woods v. Candela, 47 F.3d 545, 546 (2d Cir.1995). A claim for false arrest accrues either (1) at the time of the arrest, if the false arrest did not provide the prosecuti......
-
Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley
...will not imply the invalidity of a conviction before allowing a § 1983 illegal search and seizure claim to accrue); Woods v. Candela, 47 F.3d 545, 546 (C.A.2, 1995). However, other federal circuits have held that the unreasonable search and seizure and false arrest or false imprisonment cla......
-
Gibson v. Super., Nj Dept., Law and Public Safety
...171 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir.1999) (same); Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123, 1125 (10th Cir.1999) (same); Woods v. Candela, 47 F.3d 545, 546 (2d Cir.1995) (same); Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 182-83 (4th Cir.1996) (same). In situations where the evidence seized a......
-
Developments in the Second Circuit: 1998-1999
...rule announced by the Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and as applied by the Second Circuit in Woods v. Candela, 47 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 1995), Second Circuit held that the determination of when plaintiffs false arrest claim accrued for statute of limitations purposes tu......