United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 09-2275
MONIQUE J. HARRINGTON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NASHUA ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Selya and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr. for appellant.
Brian J.S. Cullen, with whom CullenCollimore, PLLC was on
brief, for appellees.
June 29, 2010
SELYA, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves the timing
and elements of causes of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged Fourth Amendment violations in the nature of false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution. In the course of
addressing those matters, however, we must iron out a wrinkle
concerning the scope and effect of a judicial admission. Ruling at
the summary judgment stage, the district court found for the
defendants. The court concluded in substance that the claim of
false imprisonment was time-barred and that the claim of malicious
prosecution lacked the necessary showing of a predicate Fourth
Amendment violation. The court, however, failed to confront the
effect of the judicial admission.
We hold that the admission is not controlling because, in
pertinent part, the admitted allegation is unclear and, in any
event, concerns a matter of law rather than a matter of fact. And,
after separating wheat from chaff on the arguments anent the timing
and elements of the asserted causes of action, we affirm the
judgment below.
I. BACKGROUND
Consistent with the summary judgment standard, we
rehearse the facts in the light most flattering to the plaintiff,
drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. Houlton Citizens'
Coal. v. Town of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178, 184 (1st Cir. 1999).
-2-
On June 26, 2003, the plaintiff, Monique J. Harrington,
went for a ride with a co-worker and then repaired to his apartment
in Nashua, New Hampshire. A sexual encounter ensued. The
plaintiff alleges that, during this encounter, her co-worker raped
her.
Over two months later, the plaintiff told her fiancé
about the incident. He pressed her to report it to the
authorities, and she went to the police station for that purpose on
September 3, 2003. Unbeknownst to her, the co-worker, shortly
before, had complained to the police that he had received a
menacing telephone call. In it, the caller reportedly accused him
of having raped the plaintiff.
Once the plaintiff arrived at the police station, two
officers interviewed her for more than an hour, starting at 9:30
p.m. At 10:52 p.m., they turned her over to Detective Mark Schaaf.
The plaintiff alleges that, during the ensuing interrogation,
Detective Schaaf refused her repeated requests to go home, denied
her entreaty for the presence of a female victim/witness advocate,
and lied profusely (telling her, for example, that her co-worker
had videotaped their sexual encounter and that officers in another
room were watching the video).
The interrogation lasted until 12:22 a.m. At the
conclusion of the session, the plaintiff waived her Miranda rights,
see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966), and retracted
-3-
her allegations of rape. Detective Schaaf then arrested the
plaintiff without a warrant and swore out a criminal complaint,
charging her with making a false report to law enforcement
personnel (a misdemeanor). See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 641:4.
The plaintiff was arraigned and released on personal
recognizance at approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 4.1 The
conditions of her release required her to appear in court, notify
the court of any change in address, forbear from committing any
crimes, and refrain from using either controlled substances or
excessive amounts of alcohol. On September 23, 2004, following a
bench trial in state court, a judge acquitted the plaintiff on the
false reporting charge.
On September 22, 2007, the plaintiff repaired to the
federal district court and sued the City of Nashua, its police
department, and Detective Schaaf. Her complaint contained both
federal claims and supplemental state-law claims. Although she
lumped her federal claims together under the rubric of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the district court broke them down into two separate
claims. The court noted that the plaintiff alleged that the
1
The record does not show when, after the arrest, the
detective actually filed the complaint. That information might
have been important. See New Hampshire v. Chaisson, 458 A.2d 95,
101-02 (N.H. 1983) (holding that "adversary judicial proceedings
are commenced by the filing of the complaint in court, and not
merely by the signing of the complaint" (emphasis in original)).
Without it, there is nothing in the record on which to ground an
inference that the plaintiff was detained after the institution of
the criminal proceedings.
-4-
defendants had violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable seizures by (i) restricting her liberty without
reasonable suspicion (false imprisonment) and (ii) wrongfully
instituting criminal process against her (malicious prosecution).
Following the completion of pretrial discovery, the
defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted
the motion as to the plaintiff's federal claims and simultaneously
dismissed without prejudice the supplemental state-law claims.
Harrington v. City of Nashua, No. 07-cv-299, 2009 WL 1744569
(D.N.H. June 19, 2009). The court held that the false imprisonment
claim was time-barred because the plaintiff had sued more than
three years after the claim accrued. Id. at *4. The court held
that the malicious prosecution claim, though timely, failed to show
a cognizable Fourth Amendment violation. Id. at *4-6.
The plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e), but to no avail. See Harrington v. City of
Nashua, No. 07-cv-299, 2009 WL 2462274 (D.N.H. Aug. 12, 2009).
This timely appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed
de novo. Estate of Hevia v. Portrio Corp., 602 F.3d 34, 40 (1st
Cir. 2010); Houlton Citizens' Coal., 175 F.3d at 184. We will
uphold the entry of summary judgment if the record, evaluated in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there
-5-
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
On appeal, the plaintiff does not challenge the dismissal
of her supplemental state-law claims. Instead she takes dead aim
at the district court's handling of her false imprisonment and
malicious prosecution claims. She also criticizes the district
court's denial of her motion to alter or amend the judgment.
As said, each of the plaintiff's federal claims falls
under the carapace of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a
private right of action against a person who, under color of state
law, deprives another of rights secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States. Evans v. Avery, 100 F.3d 1033, 1036 (1st
Cir. 1996). To satisfy the statute's "injury" requirement, the
plaintiff must show a deprivation of a federally secured right.
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 112 (1992). Against this backdrop,
we address the plaintiff's claims of error one by one.
A. False Imprisonment.
Although section 1983 provides a federal cause of action,
the length of the limitations period is drawn from state law.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); Centro Medico del
Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.
2005). The federal court must borrow the limitations period from
the forum state. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 239 (1989); Centro
Medico, 406 F.3d at 6.
-6-
In this instance, the parties agree that the section 1983
claims are governed, temporally, by New Hampshire's three-year
statute of limitations for personal injury tort claims. See N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4. Because the plaintiff commenced her
action on September 22, 2007, her false imprisonment claim is time-
barred if it accrued more than three years prior to that date.
Unlike the limitations period itself, the accrual date of
a section 1983 claim is a matter of federal law and, therefore, is
"governed by federal rules conforming in general to common-law tort
principles." Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388. The limitations period for
a Fourth Amendment claim of false imprisonment begins to run when
the false imprisonment ends; that is, when the putative plaintiff
is either released or detained pursuant to legal process. See id.
at 389; Mondragón v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078, 1082-83 (10th Cir.
2008).
In this case, Detective Schaaf arrested the plaintiff
without a warrant and swore out a criminal complaint against her.
These actions occurred in the early morning hours of September 4,
2003, and the plaintiff was immediately arraigned and released on
personal recognizance. The clustering of these events on a single
date leads unerringly to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claim
accrued at that time. Because the plaintiff did not file suit
until more than three years later — on September 22, 2007 — her
false imprisonment claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
-7-
The plaintiff does not go quietly into this dark night.
She suggests that the accrual of her false imprisonment claim
should not be measured by the usual metrics for such claims but,
rather, by the metrics applicable to malicious prosecution claims.
In service of this suggestion, she argues that, from the officers'
point of view, the main objective of her detention was to supply
probable cause for the ensuing prosecution and, therefore, that
malicious prosecution furnishes the most appropriate model from
which to determine an accrual date. If that argument prevails, her
false imprisonment claim would not have accrued until her acquittal
on September 23, 2004, see Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 53
(1st Cir. 2001), making that claim timely.
This suggestion is clever, but it ignores a critical
distinction between false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
The Supreme Court has held that when a plaintiff's claim arises out
of "detention without legal process," the tort of false
imprisonment provides the appropriate analogy from which to
ascertain the accrual date of a cause of action under section 1983.
Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389 (emphasis in original). The Court
explained that when the period of false imprisonment ends, any
unlawful detention thereafter "forms part of the damages for the
entirely distinct tort of malicious prosecution." Id. at 390
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is the latter
tort, not the tort of false imprisonment, that "remedies detention
-8-
accompanied, not by absence of legal process, but by wrongful
institution of legal process." Id. (emphasis in original). In
other words, the commencement of a criminal case by the institution
of legal process marks the dividing line between claims of false
imprisonment and claims of malicious prosecution, making those
species of claims legally separate and distinct. See Wilkins v.
DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790, 799 n.5 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Fox v.
DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227, 235 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussing Wallace's
clarification of the distinction between claims of false
imprisonment and those of malicious prosecution).
The plaintiff's argument runs aground on these shoals.
Consequently, her claim that the defendants restricted her liberty
without reasonable suspicion begins with her detention at the
police station and ends with her release on personal recognizance.
The essence of her claim, therefore, is detention without legal
process.2 That is a classic claim of false imprisonment, and its
timeliness is to be measured by the metrics applicable to the tort
of false imprisonment. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389. Because
these metrics establish an accrual date of September 4, 2003, the
claim is time-barred.
2
The plaintiff contends that her warrantless arrest and
subsequent detention constituted detention pursuant to legal
process because she actually was arrested based on the criminal
complaint. We deal with this contention in our discussion of her
malicious prosecution claim. See infra Part II(B).
-9-
The plaintiff has a fallback position. She muses that
her false imprisonment claim is timely under a "continuing wrong"
theory. She argues, in effect, that her two claims — false
imprisonment and malicious prosecution — are inextricably
intertwined because the defendants' conduct was part of a single
plan to deprive her of her liberty interests. Thus, her false
imprisonment claim accrued at the same time as her malicious
prosecution claim, and not before.
In support of this reasoning, the plaintiff relies
chiefly on Robinson v. Maruffi, 895 F.2d 649 (10th Cir. 1990).
There, the court held that a claim of false imprisonment was not
time-barred because the plaintiff's arrest was part of a
"continuing violation" — a conspiracy to prosecute him maliciously
— that continued until he was finally acquitted. Id. at 655.
The attempt to prop up an untimely claim by invoking
Robinson is not original. We made short shrift of a substantially
similar argument in Nieves, where we pointed out that Robinson was
an "unusual case in which the malicious prosecution conspiracy
began before the victim's arrest and encompassed it." Nieves, 241
F.3d at 52. With that in mind, we rejected the plaintiffs' theory
of a single conspiracy encompassing both false arrest and malicious
prosecution. Id.
Nieves is the beacon by which we must steer. In this
case, as in Nieves, there is absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy
-10-
that began before the date of the plaintiff's arrest. The
plaintiff and the officers were strangers, and the plaintiff has
never alleged a preexisting conspiracy. Robinson is, therefore,
inapposite.
The plaintiff grasps at one last straw. She notes that,
in Nieves, we left open the possibility of "rare and exotic
circumstances in which a section 1983 claim based on a warrantless
arrest will not accrue at the time of the arrest." Id. at 52 n.4;
accord Calero-Colón v. Betancourt-Lebrón, 68 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.
1995) (Lynch, J., concurring). But any such opening appears to
have been closed by the Supreme Court. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at
391 (rejecting argument that a false imprisonment claim was
actionable after the limitations period had run on the petitioner's
theory that "the initial Fourth Amendment violation set the wheels
in motion for his subsequent conviction and detention"). In short,
we agree with the Seventh Circuit that, after Wallace, later
proceedings are irrelevant to the accrual of a false arrest or
false imprisonment claim brought under section 1983.3 Brooks v.
City of Chicago, 564 F.3d 830, 832 (7th Cir. 2009).
That ends this aspect of the matter. We hold that the
plaintiff's false imprisonment claim, which accrued on September 4,
3
In an abundance of caution, we add that even if the
possibility of a later accrual date still exists — which we doubt
— this case does not present the rare or exotic circumstances that
would be needed to trigger the possibility.
-11-
2003, is barred by the applicable three-year statute of
limitations.
B. Malicious Prosecution.
The plaintiff's remaining cause of action posits that the
defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights by wrongfully
instituting legal process against her. It remains an unanswered
question whether a malicious prosecution claim is cognizable under
the Fourth Amendment and section 1983, see Wallace, 549 U.S. at 390
n.2; Nieves, 241 F.3d at 54, and we do not propose to resolve that
uncertainty today. In its present posture, the record here allows
us to assume, without deciding, that malicious prosecution can
embody a Fourth Amendment violation and, thus, ground a cause of
action under section 1983. We proceed on that assumption.
To succeed in maintaining a section 1983 claim for
malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show a deprivation of
liberty, pursuant to legal process, that is consistent with the
concept of a Fourth Amendment seizure. Nieves, 241 F.3d at 54;
Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 1999); Singer v.
Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1995). In the
typical situation, the requisite legal process "comes either in the
form of an arrest warrant (in which case the arrest would
constitute the seizure) or a subsequent charging document (in which
case the sum of post-arraignment deprivations would comprise the
seizure)." Nieves, 241 F.3d at 54.
-12-
The plaintiff tries to support her claim that a seizure
occurred in several different ways. Her first effort hinges on the
assertion that her arrest was based on the detective's wrongful
procurement of a criminal complaint. The evidence is to the
contrary. Detective Schaaf swore in an affidavit that the arrest
preceded the swearing out and filing of the complaint, and there
are no facts in the record to contradict this sequence of events.
The plaintiff nonetheless derives support for her
argument from a procedural anomaly. She points to the answer to
her complaint in this civil action, in which the defendants
admitted the following allegation: "Defendant Schaaf then
instituted legal process in the form of a criminal complaint
charging the plaintiff with making a False Report to Law
Enforcement . . . based upon which legal process the plaintiff was
arrested." Even though this argument was made below, the district
court did not grapple with the effect of the judicial admission.
We must do so.
Ordinarily, a pleading admitting a fact alleged in an
antecedent pleading is treated as a binding judicial admission,
removing the fact from contention for the duration of the
litigation. See, e.g., Crest Hill Land Dev., LLC v. City of
Joliet, 396 F.3d 801, 805 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Schott
Motorcycle Supply, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 976 F.2d 58, 61
(1st Cir. 1992). But there are limits to what parties can admit,
-13-
see, e.g., Whitfield v. Mun'y of Fajardo, 564 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir.
2009), so it is important to parse the particular admission in each
case.
We have no difficulty in holding the defendants to the
factual component of the admitted allegation: that the detective
instituted legal process against the plaintiff in the form of a
criminal complaint. The remainder of the allegation, however,
speaks to a matter of law: whether the relationship between the
arrest and the complaint was such as to constitute a seizure
pursuant to legal process. Admitting that the plaintiff's arrest
was "based upon" the complaint does not answer that legal question.
The allegation, as framed, can fairly be read to mean that the
arrest was based upon the events described in the complaint.
Of course, the plaintiff seeks to have us read the
admitted allegation to mean that the complaint was the instrument
through which the arrest was effected. That reading is not
compelled by the language of the allegation, and we are not aware
of any authority that requires us to give it credence. To be
binding, a judicial admission must be "clear," Comm'l Money Ctr.,
Inc. v Ill. Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 336 (6th Cir. 2007), and
this one is not.
In all events, a court is not obliged to accept a
proposition of law simply because one party elects not to contest
it. See id. (explaining that "legal conclusions are rarely
-14-
considered to be binding judicial admissions"); In re Teleglobe
Commc'ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 377 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that
judicial admissions "must be statements of fact that require
evidentiary proof, not statements of legal theories").
Here, moreover, the absurdity of the plaintiff's
interpretation of the admission is manifest. For one thing, that
interpretation is counter-factual; the record is pellucid that the
plaintiff's arrest antedated the issuance of the complaint. Thus,
as a temporal matter, the former could not have been "based upon"
the latter in the sense that the plaintiff now suggests.
For another thing, the admitted allegation does not
purport to contradict the undisputed fact that Detective Schaaf
arrested the plaintiff without a warrant. This is important to an
understanding of the legal underpinnings of the arrest: although a
criminal complaint may, under New Hampshire law, provide grounds
for the issuance of an arrest warrant, see N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 592-A:8, a complaint alone cannot serve as a surrogate for a
warrant.
The arrest in this case was both warrantless and for a
misdemeanor, and New Hampshire law cedes to police officers the
power to make warrantless misdemeanor arrests under only three sets
of circumstances. See id. § 594:10. None of these paradigms
includes the mere existence of a criminal complaint. Thus, the
-15-
plaintiff's warrantless misdemeanor arrest could not have been
"based upon" the complaint in any relevant sense.
Seen in this perspective, the plaintiff's interpretation
of the admitted allegation is unpersuasive. Consequently, we
reject her argument that, because of the admission, it must be
assumed that a seizure pursuant to legal process took place. On
the record as a whole, it plainly did not.
Once we strip away the plaintiff's misplaced reliance on
the judicial admission, the frailty of her "arrest-based" malicious
prosecution claim becomes apparent. Where, as here, a person is
arrested without a warrant and before the issuance of any legal
process, that arrest does not form part of a Fourth Amendment
seizure upon which a section 1983 malicious prosecution claim may
be premised. See Nieves, 241 F.3d at 54; see also Singer, 63 F.3d
at 117 (holding that the plaintiff's arrest "cannot serve as the
predicate deprivation of liberty because it occurred prior to his
arraignment and without a warrant, and therefore was not 'pursuant
to legal process'"). In the last analysis, the plaintiff "cannot
base a malicious prosecution claim on [her] warrantless arrest,
because it did not constitute legal process." Meehan v. Town of
Plymouth, 167 F.3d 85, 90 (1st Cir. 1999).
This leaves the plaintiff with the task of showing some
post-arraignment deprivation of liberty that amounts to a Fourth
-16-
Amendment seizure. See Nieves, 241 F.3d at 54; Singer, 63 F.3d at
117. It is to that inquiry that we now turn.
In this regard, the plaintiff contends that she suffered
post-arraignment deprivations of liberty associated with the
conditions of her pretrial release. Relatedly, she complains of
loss of her job, degradation of her prospects for employment
elsewhere, harm to her reputation, and stress (emotional and
financial) attendant to trial preparation.
The plaintiff's contention that the conditions of her
pretrial release constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure is
foreclosed by precedent. Those conditions required her to attend
court proceedings, notify the court of any change in address,
refrain from committing crimes, and forebear from consuming either
controlled substances or excessive quantities of alcohol. These
are standard fare — what we have termed "run-of-the-mill conditions
of pretrial release." Nieves, 241 F.3d at 55. We have held
squarely that such standard conditions "do not fit comfortably
within the recognized parameters of the term ['seizure']." Id.
The law in other circuits is to like effect. See Kingsland v. City
of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that no
court of appeals "ha[s] been willing to conclude that normal
conditions of pretrial release constitute a 'continuing seizure'
barring some significant, ongoing deprivation of liberty, such as
a restriction on the defendant's right to travel interstate").
-17-
In this case, there is no indication that the plaintiff
was detained after the initiation of the criminal charge, forced to
post a pecuniary bond, subjected to travel restrictions, or
otherwise burdened with any significant deprivation of liberty. In
the absence of any such impositions, the standard conditions of
pretrial release do not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment
seizure.4 See Nieves, 241 F.3d at 56; Britton, 196 F.3d at 29.
The argument that loss of employment, reputational harm,
and stress can collectively constitute a seizure is equally
shopworn. We rebuffed that argument in Nieves, 241 F.3d at 54-55,
and we take the same position here. The types of things about
which the plaintiff complains are inevitable concomitants of the
pendency of criminal charges. If such trappings could constitute
a seizure, "virtually every criminal defendant will be deemed to be
seized pending the resolution of the charges against him. That
would mean, in turn, that nearly every malicious prosecution claim
could be brought before a federal court under the aegis of section
1983." Id. at 55. Such a wholesale importation of garden-variety
tort concepts into the jurisprudence of section 1983 would
trivialize that statute. Cf. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701
4
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion in Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266, 276 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., concurring), does not tip
the balance. The thesis expounded in that concurrence has been
considered and respectfully rejected by this court. See Nieves,
241 F.3d at 55-56; see also Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1236 (collecting
cases from other courts of appeals).
-18-
(1976) (warning against attempts "to derive from congressional
civil rights statutes a body of general federal tort law").
To say more on this issue would be supererogatory. We
agree with the court below that the plaintiff failed to make out
the Fourth Amendment violation needed to sustain her section 1983
malicious prosecution claim.
C. The Rule 59(e) Motion.
In view of the foregoing, we need not discuss the denial
of the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The
denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15, 25 (1st Cir. 2008).
Summary judgment here was not a matter of discretion but, rather,
was legally compelled. Accordingly, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to alter or amend the judgment.
III. CONCLUSION
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
we reject the plaintiff's appeal.
Affirmed.
-19-