Murray et al v. Blanton et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Ordergranting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; adopting in part and declining to adopt in part Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations.; re 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 8 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Memorandum in Support filed by FNU Blanton, Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department, Jim Winder. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/19/14. (jmr)

______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

CHAD MURRAY & RYAN YARNELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION IN PART
AND DECLINING TO ADOPT IN PART

J F BLANTON, JR., ET AL.,
Case No. 2:13CV827DAK
Defendants.
Judge Dale A. Kimball

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On July 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted. The Report and Recommendation
notified Plaintiffs that any objection to the Report and Recommendation was required to be filed
within fourteen days of receiving it. Plaintiffs sought an extension to file their objections, which
was granted. On August 13, 2014, Defendants filed their objection.
A Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is subject to de novo review by this
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court has reviewed the
record de novo with respect to Defendants’ motion. Magistrate Judge Wells recommended that
the court dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims as time barred because they filed their
Complaint more than four years after the dates of their arrests.

The court agrees that Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims with respect to improper arrest,
interrogation, and search and seizure are time barred under the applicable four-year statute of
limitations. “Claims arising out of police actions toward a criminal suspect, such as arrest,
interrogation, or search and seizure, are presumed to have accrued when the actions actually
occur.” Johnson v. Johnson County Comm’m Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir. 1991). Yarnell
was arrested on January 11, 2009, and Murray was arrested on April 20, 2009. However, they
did not filed their Complaint until September 5, 2013. Accordingly, their claims associated with
the events of their arrest are time barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
However, Plaintiffs also state civil rights claims based on malicious prosecution. The
Tenth Circuit recognizes that “[a] malicious-prosecution claim is not cognizable until all the
elements are satisfied, and one of the elements is that the original action terminated in favor of
the plaintiff. As such, [the Tenth Circuit] has held that a malicious-prosecution claim does not
accrue until proceedings terminate in the plaintiff’s favor.” Myers v. Koopman, 738 F.3d 1190,
1195 (10th Cir. 2013). Yarnell’s prosecution terminated in his favor when a jury found him not
guilty on February 18, 2010. Murray’s prosecution terminated in his favor when a motion to
suppress was granted in his favor and the case was dismissed on May 12, 2010. Therefore, to the
extent that Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims include malicious prosecution, such claims are not time
barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Wells’ Report and
Recommendation as to the civil rights claims associated with the events and actions surrounding
Plaintiffs’ arrests. However, the court declines to adopt Magistrate Judge Wells’ Report and
Recommendation to the extent that Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims include claims for malicious
2

prosecution. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
DATED this 19th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

3