Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

McDonough v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States · 2019 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSection 1983Statute of LimitationsAccrual§1983fabricated evidenceaccrualstatute of limitations

Facts

McDonough processed absentee ballots in a 2009 primary election in Troy, New York, and Smith was specially appointed to investigate forged ballots. McDonough alleged that Smith fabricated evidence against him, including falsified affidavits, coached witness testimony, and a suspect DNA analysis, then used that evidence to secure an indictment and to prosecute him at two trials. McDonough was arrested, arraigned, and released with travel restrictions pending trial; the first trial ended in a mistrial and the second ended in his acquittal on December 21, 2012. McDonough filed his §1983 suit on December 18, 2015, just under three years after acquittal.

Issue

When does the statute of limitations begin to run on a §1983 fabricated-evidence claim alleging that fabricated evidence was used to pursue criminal charges and caused a deprivation of liberty? Specifically, does such a claim accrue when the plaintiff learns of the fabrication and suffers liberty restraints, or only when the criminal proceedings terminate in his favor?

Rule

For a §1983 fabricated-evidence claim like McDonough’s—one alleging a due process violation consisting of deprivation of liberty caused by fabricated evidence used in criminal proceedings—the statute of limitations begins to run only when the criminal proceedings terminate in the defendant’s favor. Such a claim is most analogous to malicious prosecution, and accrual is deferred to favorable termination to avoid parallel civil and criminal litigation, conflicting judgments, and collateral attacks on criminal proceedings.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, prosecutor Dana Mercer allegedly fabricated lab notes and used them before a grand jury and later at trial to pursue felony charges against Owen Price. Owen was released pending trial subject to weekly reporting requirements, acquitted on March 1, 2022, and filed a §1983 suit on February 20, 2025, in a jurisdiction with a three-year limitations period.

Is Owen's fabricated-evidence claim timely?

Explanation. For a §1983 fabricated-evidence claim alleging deprivation of liberty caused by fabricated evidence used in criminal proceedings, accrual is deferred until the criminal proceedings terminate in the defendant's favor. The Court treated such a claim as most analogous to malicious prosecution, not as accruing when the plaintiff first learns of the fabrication or first suffers liberty restraints. Because Owen sued within three years of acquittal, the claim is timely. (Derived from McDonough v. Smith (n.d.).)