Bradford v. Scherschligt, No. 14-35651 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff served his full ten-year sentence, the State of Washington vacated his residential burglary and rape conviction based largely on newly-available DNA testing. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendant, a police detective, alleging the deliberate fabrication of evidence. The district court found that plaintiff's claim was time-barred and granted summary judgment for defendant. The court held that plaintiff’s claim did not accrue until he was acquitted of all charges on February 10, 2010. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff filed the underlying action within the three-year statute of limitations period, and it was error to dismiss his deliberate fabrication of evidence claim as time-barred. The court declined to address defendant’s qualified immunity defense, and remanded for the district court to consider it in the first instance.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a civil rights action as time-barred and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. In 1996, plaintiff was convicted and served a full ten-year sentence for residential burglary and rape. In 2008, the Washington State courts vacated his conviction based largely on newly-available DNA testing. Prosecutors retried plaintiff, which resulted in his acquittal in 2010. In 2013, plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a Yakima Police Department detective alleging the deliberate fabrication of evidence. The district court, determining that the running of the three-year statute of limitations began on the vacatur of plaintiff’s conviction and not the date of his acquittal on retrial, found plaintiff’s claim time-barred. The panel held that plaintiff’s claim did not accrue until he was acquitted of all charges on retrial. The panel concluded that plaintiff filed the underlying action within the three-year statute of limitations period, and it was error to dismiss his deliberate fabrication of evidence claim as time- barred. The panel declined to address the defendant’s qualified immunity defense and remanded for the district court to consider it in the first instance. BRADFORD V. SCHERSCHLIGT 3
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.