CA5: SOL on 4A claim under § 1983 starts with the search and seizure

The statute of limitations for a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 starts from the time of the search and seizure. Even if tolling were to apply here while plaintiff challenged his conviction, the case was filed way too late. Jaramillo v. Renner, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17224 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2017):

First, the district court did not err in finding that his claims of false arrest and illegal search and seizure were time barred. On the date of the search and seizure, that is, May 5, 2008, there was no “extant conviction” but merely an “anticipated future conviction”; consequently, the statute of limitations began to run for those claims on that date. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 166 L. Ed. 2d 973 (2007). As for his claim of false arrest, the limitation period began to run when he was detained pursuant to legal process, that is, no later than August 26, 2008. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388, 397. His § 1983 complaint, filed no earlier than April 7, 2015, was thus untimely as to his claims of false arrest and illegal search and seizure. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a); see also Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 1993) (borrowing two-year statute of limitations period from Texas law for § 1983 case).

Jaramillo contends that he is nevertheless entitled to tolling under state law for the period during which he challenged his conviction. We need not decide this question because, even with the benefit of that tolling, his claims would still be untimely. Jaramillo was convicted in March 2009, and the conviction was set aside in August 2013. At least 27 months elapsed before he filed suit: seven months expired from the time he was detained pursuant to legal process until he was convicted, and another 20 months expired after the conviction was set aside but before he filed suit.