Mills v. City of Covina, No. 17-56343 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The statute of limitations for a criminal defendant's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action is not tolled under California Code of Civil Procedure 356 during the pendency of an appeal from a conviction, in light of the Supreme Court's rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In this case, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and a smoking device were overturned, because the Superior Court erred in denying plaintiff's suppression motion.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that plaintiff's claims for unlawful stop and detention, false arrest, and false imprisonment were time-barred because Heck did not legally prevent plaintiff from commencing those claims during his appeal. Therefore, tolling under section 356 was not triggered. The panel held that plaintiff's malicious prosecution and Monell actions were also barred, because reversal of his conviction was not a favorable termination.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims as time-barred and affirmed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that plaintiff was stopped and searched by police officers without probable cause, falsely arrested, and maliciously prosecuted. Plaintiff brought suit under § 1983 after a California Court of Appeal overturned his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and a smoking device on the grounds that the Superior Court erred by denying plaintiff’s suppression motion. The panel held that plaintiff’s claims for unlawful stop and detention, false arrest and false imprisonment were time- barred because Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) did not legally prevent plaintiff from commencing those claims during his criminal appeal and thus tolling under California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 was not triggered. The panel noted that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims accrued at the time he was searched and arrested and that under California law, the statute of limitations was tolled during the criminal proceedings in Superior Court, but not during the criminal appeal. The panel held that where, as in this case, a § 1983 claim accrues pre-conviction, the possibility that Heck may require dismissal of that “not-yet-filed, and
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.