Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela

Second Circuit

Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela

47 F.3d 545, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2495

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1995

Docket20-642

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 47 F.3d 545 (Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela, 47 F.3d 545, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2495 (2d Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This 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.

In 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.

In 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.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This 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.

In 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.

In 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.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 F.3d 545, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darryl-j-woods-v-joseph-candela-ca2-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack