Richards v. Barrett
In brief
The Supreme Court refused to hear Richards's case, so it did not rule on whether the alleged retroactive use of good-conduct-time rules was lawful.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Court held that a person bringing a Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim need only show that the criminal case ended without a conviction; the dismissal need not affirmatively show the person was innocent.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Supreme Court review for Richards but left the main legal question about the alleged retroactive rule undecided by the Supreme Court.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court ruled for the plaintiff, rejecting the Second Circuit’s stricter rule.
The petition arose from litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Question presented
Whether the “favorable termination” element of a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim can be satisfied by a dismissal of the underlying criminal case that does not affirmatively indicate the innocence of the accused, as the Eleventh Circuit has held, or whether the plaintiff must prove that the dismissal was indicative of innocence, as the Second Circuit held below.
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The lower court's result remains in place. The Supreme Court has finished this docket action and issued no ruling on the legal question.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- Did the denial endorse either side's position?
- No; the Court declined review without deciding the legal question or endorsing either side's position.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.