{"id":24807,"date":"2016-12-16T04:30:23","date_gmt":"2016-12-16T09:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=24807"},"modified":"2016-12-16T11:00:08","modified_gmt":"2016-12-16T16:00:08","slug":"ca7-were-not-inclined-to-construct-a-constitutional-basis-for-plaintiffs-claims-when-she-has-failed-to-do-so-herself","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=24807","title":{"rendered":"CA7: “We\u2019re not inclined to construct a [4A] constitutional basis for [plaintiff’s] claims when she has failed to do so herself”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff is a lawyer who attempted to report a $22M theft committed by a client learned in unprivileged information. The state ignored her. Ultimately, she was charged as an aider and abetter of the client, and acquitted at trial. She then sued over the prosecution and lost on prosecutorial immunity grounds. She also framed a Fourth Amendment claim as a malicious prosecution claim and lost that too for statute of limitations and failure to flesh it out so the court would understand it. Katz-Crank v. Haskett<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21855 (7th Cir. Dec. 8, 2016)*:
\n<\/p>\n

3. Claims Against the State Officials and Investigators
\n<\/strong>
\nThe state officials and the county investigators do not enjoy absolute immunity from suit in their individual capacities, so we turn now to the substance of the federal claims against them. Katz Crank brings claims under \u00a7 1983 for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint doesn\u2019t identify any constitutional basis for the first two claims, and Katz Crank\u2019s brief doesn\u2019t either. Indeed, her brief doesn\u2019t address the substance of these claims at all; she focuses instead on the scope of the defendants\u2019 immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. We\u2019re not inclined to construct a constitutional basis for Katz Crank\u2019s claims when she has failed to do so herself. In the interest of completeness, however, we note that the Fourth Amendment claim doesn\u2019t appear to be one for false arrest; that claim would be time barred in any event. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 391 (2007) (explaining that the limitations period for a Fourth Amendment claim for arrest without probable cause begins to run when the detainee appears before a magistrate). Rather, the Fourth Amendment claim appears to be simply a repackaged claim for malicious prosecution.<\/p>\n

Our circuit doesn\u2019t permit this maneuver; we\u2019ve held that a federal claim for malicious prosecution implicates (or at most may implicate) the right to due process, not the Fourth Amendment, and that no federal malicious prosecution As we\u2019ve noted, however, Katz Crank hasn\u2019t made this argument because she hasn\u2019t bothered to identify the basis of her federal claims (other than pointing very generally to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments). Nor has she made any effort to explain how the allegations in her complaint suffice to state a federal malicious prosecution claim. Our own review convinces us that they do not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff is a lawyer who attempted to report a $22M theft committed by a client learned in unprivileged information. The state ignored her. Ultimately, she was charged as an aider and abetter of the client, and acquitted at trial. She … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-45"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24807"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24807\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24823,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24807\/revisions\/24823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}