Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, No. 12-15077 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff served four and a half years in prison and then ordered freed when his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted, he filed an action for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, acting under color of State law, unlawfully suppressed the criminal history of a confidential informant who was the main witness against him, failed to produce the documents reflecting that criminal history, and thus caused him to be found guilty of several counts of drug trafficking and to be sentenced to a term of ten to twenty-five years. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred because it was not filed within two years of the time plaintiff learned that the confidential informant had an extensive criminal history. The court granted Washoe County's motion to supplement the record and the court took judicial notice of the court documents presented by the motion. Under Heck v. Humphrey, plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue until his conviction was held invalid. Therefore, plaintiff's claims did not accrue until the Nevada court vacated his convictions on December 2, 2008. Since plaintiff commenced his lawsuit on December 1, 2010, less than two years after December 2, 2008, his claim was timely and the district court erred in dismissing it as time-barred. The court rejected Defendant Palmer's argument for dismissing the complaint against him; plaintiff's claims against Washoe County and the City of Reno were dismissed without prejudice; and the court remanded for the district court to consider if and to what extent plaintiff's plea to the crime of Unlawful Giving Away of Controlled Substances affects his section 1983 action.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully convicted and imprisoned because defendants, acting under color of state law, unlawfully suppressed the criminal history of a confidential informant who was the main witness against plaintiff. The panel held that pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), the district court erred by dismissing the § 1983 action as time-barred under Nevada’s statute of limitations because even though plaintiff learned of defendants’ unlawful actions while in prison, plaintiff’s § 1983 claim did not accrue until his convictions were later invalidated. The panel held that plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged willful conduct on the part of a police officer for failing to disclose the confidential informant’s criminal history. The panel further held that on remand plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint as to his municipal liability claims. The panel granted Washoe County’s motion to supplement the record and took judicial notice of the court documents relating to the ending of plaintiff’s jail term. The panel directed that on remand, the district court should consider if and to what extent plaintiff’s plea to the crime of Unlawful Giving Away of Controlled Substances affected his § 1983 action.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.