## Facts

- Aaron Patterson was convicted in Illinois state court of the 1986 murders of Rafaela and Vincent Sanchez and was sentenced to death.
- Patterson alleged that Chicago Police officers assigned to the investigation (including Jon Burge and other Area 2 detectives) coerced witnesses, fabricated inculpatory evidence, and ignored evidence pointing to other perpetrators.
- Patterson alleged he was arrested, taken to Area 2 police headquarters, beaten and tortured until he confessed, and that officers fabricated or falsified his “confession.”
- Patterson alleged the defendants suppressed exculpatory evidence and obstructed justice during his suppression hearing, trial, and post-conviction proceedings, and that officers and witnesses gave perjured testimony.
- In 2000, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered an evidentiary hearing concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and newly developed evidence of an alleged pattern of torture at Area 2.
- On January 10, 2003, the Governor of Illinois pardoned Patterson, citing a coerced confession and actual innocence.
- Patterson filed a federal civil-rights action in 2003 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois law against police officers, prosecutors, supervisory officials, and municipal entities; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Patterson also alleged that in 1999, a defendant officer made televised statements denying torture and asserting Patterson’s guilt, forming part of a defamation theory.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1983 claims that would imply the invalidity of Patterson’s conviction accrued only after the conviction was nullified by the gubernatorial pardon, making the 2003 suit timely.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated federal claims for coerced confession/torture, fabrication of evidence, suppression of exculpatory material, and denial of a fair trial.
3. Whether supervisory officials and municipal entities could be liable based on alleged knowledge of, and failure to stop, an Area 2 pattern of torture and related constitutional violations.
4. Whether prosecutors and other officials were protected by absolute or qualified immunity for the challenged conduct.
5. Whether Illinois state-law claims (including false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation) were time-barred or inadequately pleaded.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part.
- Conviction-related § 1983 claims based on alleged fabrication, coercion, and suppression were treated as timely because they accrued when the conviction was invalidated by the 2003 pardon.
- Claims not dependent on invalidating the conviction—such as a stand-alone false imprisonment theory tied to the initial arrest—were dismissed as time-barred.
- The court held the allegations of torture, fabricated evidence, coerced testimony, and suppression of exculpatory evidence sufficiently stated federal due-process and fair-trial claims at the pleading stage.
- Certain supervisory and municipal liability theories were allowed to proceed where the complaint alleged knowledge of a pattern of abuse and failure to act, but were narrowed where the pleading did not connect particular officials to actionable policies or practices.
- Some claims against prosecutorial defendants were dismissed to the extent they challenged acts closely connected to advocacy in the judicial process, which were protected by absolute immunity; allegations framed as non-advocacy conduct were not categorically barred at the pleading stage.
- Certain state-law claims were dismissed as untimely or legally deficient; an intentional infliction of emotional distress theory was permitted to proceed where the alleged misconduct was pleaded as continuing into post-conviction proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the rule barring collateral civil attacks on an outstanding conviction, § 1983 claims that necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction accrue only after the conviction has been invalidated; a pardon that nullifies the conviction can trigger accrual.
- Allegations that police tortured a suspect to obtain a confession, fabricated inculpatory evidence, coerced witnesses, and suppressed exculpatory material can state due-process and fair-trial claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments at the pleading stage.
- Municipal liability may be plausibly alleged where a plaintiff pleads an unconstitutional custom or practice and that the municipality’s action or inaction caused the constitutional injury; conclusory assertions may be insufficient as to particular officials absent factual linkage.
- Prosecutors are absolutely immune for conduct intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, but not necessarily for non-advocacy investigative or administrative conduct.
- State-law limitations rules can bar arrest-based claims long after detention begins; a “continuing tort” theory may permit later accrual for claims alleging ongoing extreme misconduct into post-conviction proceedings, depending on pleaded facts.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Patterson to proceed on central federal claims tied to his allegedly coerced confession, fabricated evidence, and suppression of exculpatory material by treating those conviction-related claims as accruing upon the pardon that nullified his conviction, while dismissing distinct arrest-based and other claims that were untimely or barred by prosecutorial immunity.


Patterson v. Burge, 328 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ill. 2004)