Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela

Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela, 47 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 1995)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1995-02-09
Topic
bankruptcy

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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Darryl J. Woods v. Joseph Candela. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
27 opinions
WOODS v. CANDELA,47 F.3d 545(2nd Cir. 1995)
DARRYL J. WOODS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH CANDELA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 653, Docket 93-7664.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted after Remand January 10, 1995.
Decided February 9, 1995.
Page 546
Robert N. Isseks, Goshen, N Y (Alex Smith, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Frederic L. Lieberman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, New York City (Dennis C. Vacco, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Albany, NY), of counsel for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before: LUMBARD, KEARSE, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This case has been remanded to us by the Supreme Court.Woodsv. 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 under42 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 ofHeck v. Humphrey,___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), an opinion rendered after our decision.

[2] InHeck,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 notnecessarilyimply that the plaintiff's 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.

[3] 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, underHeck,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.

[4] Reversed and remanded.