Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 F.3d 545

Docket No. 653, Docket 93-7664.

Woods v. Candela

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted after Remand Jan. 10, 1995.

Decided Feb. 9, 1995.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-02-09

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem (1996), Harvey v. Waldron (2000)

16 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In Heck, the Supreme Court held that “A § 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction of sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 490 , 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 such as an action founded on an unlawful search whose illegality would not affect the validity of the conviction, (emphasis mine)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Covington v. City of New York

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Heck v. Humphrey · Woods v. Candela · Arizona v. Cook

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1995-02-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*546Robert N. Isseks, Goshen, NY (Alex Smith, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

¶2Frederic L. Lieberman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, New York City (Dennis C. Yaeco, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Albany, NY), of counsel for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before: LUMBARD, KEARSE, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5This 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.

¶6In 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 plaintiffs 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.

¶7In 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.

¶8Reversed and remanded.

/47/f3d/545 · .json · Public domain