From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woods v. Candela

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 9, 1995
47 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 1995)

Summary

holding that where state court conviction had been reversed because of, inter alia, an illegal search, plaintiff's § 1983 claim based on the illegal search necessarily implied conviction was unlawful and, under Heck, could not have been raised until the conviction was reversed

Summary of this case from Bowers v. Kelly

Opinion

No. 653, Docket 93-7664.

Submitted after Remand January 10, 1995.

Decided February 9, 1995.

Robert N. Isseks, Goshen, N Y (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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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. § 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 § 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 § 1983 cause of action for damages arising from Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations did not accrue before that date. Consequently, Woods's suit was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Woods v. Candela

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 9, 1995
47 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 1995)

holding that where state court conviction had been reversed because of, inter alia, an illegal search, plaintiff's § 1983 claim based on the illegal search necessarily implied conviction was unlawful and, under Heck, could not have been raised until the conviction was reversed

Summary of this case from Bowers v. Kelly

holding that a federal Section 1983 claim grounded in false arrest simply does not accrue so long as a recovery would impugn a criminal conviction

Summary of this case from Kilgore v. Police Officer Kaufman

In Woods, the Second Circuit confronted a similar set of circumstances: a New York State Court decision had reversed the plaintiff's conviction and dismissed the indictment after ruling that the plaintiff's suppression motion should have been granted due to the defendant's lack of a reasonable suspicion on which to detain and question the plaintiff and thereafter search his vehicle.

Summary of this case from Kilgore v. Police Officer Kaufman

In Woods v. Candela, 47 F.3d 545 (2d. Cir. 1995), the court followed the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and applied it to Wood's action for false arrest and other violations of his constitutional rights, as it had been directed to do on remand from the Supreme Court. Woods v. Candela, 513 U.S. 801 (1994).

Summary of this case from Bacchiocchi v. Chapman
Case details for

Woods v. Candela

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL J. WOODS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH CANDELA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Feb 9, 1995

Citations

47 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 1995)

Citing Cases

Covington v. City of New York

We hold that the answer to this question turns on whether a judgment in Covington's favor on the false arrest…

Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, N. Carolina

In sum, we do not read Heck as altering the general rule that a Section(s) 1983 claim seeking damages for an…