Court clarifies false arrest right to sue
on Feb 21, 2007 at 10:05 am
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that an individual filing a civil rights lawsuit claiming a false arrest by police must sue within a time period that begins to run at the time of detention, not after any resulting conviction or sentence has been overturned. This requires plaintiffs to file considerably earlier than they would have preferred, and perhaps before their claim has matured or been strengthened through a successful appeal of a conviction.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. There were two Justices in partial dissent. The case was Wallace v. Kato (05-1240, download here). In that case, the statute of limitations for filing a civil rights claim was two years, under Illinois law.
The false arrest claim in the civil rights lawsuit by Andre Wallace of Chicago had its origin, the Court ruled, when he appeared before a magistrate after his arrest and was bound over for trial. More than two years elapsed between that date and the day he filed his lawsuit, and thus, the Court decided, the lawsuit was too late.
The Scalia opinion was supported by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and by Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens joined in the result only, along with Justice David H. Souter. Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In the only other decision on the merits Wednesday, the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that the right in the Bankruptcy Code to convert a Chapter 7 case into a Chapter 13 proceeding is not absolute, and may be forfeited. In the case of Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts (05-996, download here), the Court ruled that a Gloucester, Mass., man, Robert Louis Marrama, had forfeited his right to convert his bankruptcy case because he did not qualify as a debtor under Chapter 13.
Both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 allow an individual who has become insolvent to have some debts erased in order to help begin a fresh start. Chapter 7 allows some debts to be excused after a trustee has liquidated the assets and distributed the proceeds to creditors. The trustee in that situation controls the assets. Chapter 13 allows an individual with regular income to have some debts excused after completing a debt-payment plan approved by the bankruptcy court; in that situation, the debtor retains possession of the property.
Lower courts have been divided on whether a debtor who acts in bad faith during a Chapter 13 proceeding by concealing assets forfeits the right to convert to such a proceeding. Some courts have said that even a bad-faith debtor has a right to convert. The Court on Wednesday rejected that view.
In the case of Marrama, the Gloucester businessman (he had been in the flooring business) had sought an increase in a line of credit from a bank to deal with cash flow problems. The bank refused, and called in its debts. He was then unemployed and had no income, and had shut down his business. He filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7.
He later got a job in his brother’s flooring business, and had regular income. He then sought to convert his bankruptcy case to Chapter 13 to try to salvage his interest in homes in Gloucester and in Maine. The trustee and the bank objected, contending that Marrama had put his Maine property in a trust to shield it from creditors. The bankruptcy court denied conversion, and that was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court. That result was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the opinion written by Justice Stevens.
Joining in the majority were Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter. Justice Alito dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas.
