Powell v. United States of America

Background

Calvin Powell alleged that law-enforcement officers unlawfully searched his apartment building and fabricated evidence used to arrest, detain, and prosecute him. The search warrant covered the building’s first and second floors, but the officers allegedly searched the third-floor apartment and a closet on the third-floor landing, where they found cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and cash. Powell alleged that the officers then agreed to falsely report that the evidence had been found in his possession and within the warrant’s scope.

Powell was arrested and charged in New York state court. He alleged that Agent Edward Maher signed arrest paperwork containing false and misleading information and that Agents Maher and Joseph Tamweber discussed the matter with the prosecutor. After an inspection of the apartment and review of seizure photographs, the prosecution conceded that the evidence had come from the third floor, and all criminal charges were dismissed on September 12, 2018.

Powell’s Second Amended Complaint asserted three claims against Tamweber and Maher: a Fourth Amendment false-arrest claim, a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim, and a Fifth Amendment due-process claim based on denial of a fair trial. Powell brought the claims under Bivens, a judicially recognized damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. He withdrew a separate supervisory-liability claim against Maher.

Rulings on the Motions

The court denied Tamweber’s and Maher’s motions to dismiss. A motion to dismiss tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a plausible claim, with the factual allegations treated as true at this stage.

The court held that the claims were timely. For the false-arrest claim, New York’s three-year limitations period was extended by a 228-day toll created by pandemic-related executive orders. The court followed a New York appellate decision holding that the orders tolled, rather than merely suspended, filing deadlines.

For the fabricated-evidence due-process claim, the court relied on the rule that the claim accrued when the criminal proceeding ended in the defendant’s favor. The court determined that the claim accrued when Powell’s criminal proceeding ended in September 2018 and that his complaint was filed within three years. The court also stated that the 228-day toll would preserve the claim even under the earlier accrual date proposed by Tamweber.

Bivens Analysis

The court declined to change its earlier decision that Powell’s claims could proceed under Bivens. It held that the false-arrest claim did not present a new Bivens context because it involved the type of unreasonable search and seizure addressed in the original Bivens case.

The court acknowledged that the malicious-prosecution and fair-trial claims involved a new Bivens context. It nevertheless held that no special factors justified refusing to allow those claims to proceed. The court rejected the proposed alternatives, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, criminal procedures, attorney-fee provisions, release-related remedies, and administrative penalties, reasoning that they did not provide Powell with compensation for the alleged past harms or adequately address the alleged misconduct by the officers.

Personal Involvement and Amendment

The court held that Powell adequately alleged Tamweber’s and Maher’s personal involvement. The complaint identified their alleged participation in searching beyond the warrant, falsely claiming that the evidence was found in Powell’s possession, preparing misleading arrest paperwork, and communicating with the prosecutor.

The court granted Powell leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The new complaint must withdraw the supervisory-liability claim against Maher and replace the phrase “under color of state law” with “under color of federal law” in paragraph 149. The court ordered the clerk to terminate the two motions to dismiss identified as ECF Nos. 133 and 134.