Wrongful prosecution claim deadlines

1. Whether the rule that a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accrues on the date a nolle prosequi is entered, as the 2 nd Circuit Court's decision in Spak v. Phillips, 857 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2017), was applied by the panel below, survives Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), which held that such a claim accrues only when the underlying criminal proceeding has been disposed of in a manner that “ cannot be revived. ”? 2. Whether, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), a federal court may apply a claim-accrual rule for the state-law tort underlying a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim that conflicts with the accrual rule the State itself has enacted, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577f, and confirmed through its appellate courts, Lopes v. Farmer, 286 Conn. 384 (2008), and Washington v. Ivancic, 113 Conn. App. 131 (2009). 3. Whether the court of appeals committed reversible error by affirming dismissal of Petitioner's claims as time-barred without addressing the tolling provision of 11 U.S.C. § 108(a), where Petitioner's claims were property of a bankruptcy estate, subject to an automatic stay, and were not abandoned back to him until the bankruptcy court's order of August 1, 2021 — a dispositive, squarely presented question of federal statutory law that the panel's summary order does not address. 4. Whether an officer's arrest warrant application can establish probable cause for larceny as a matter of law where the application accounts only for the income a property manager received from the property, with no accounting for the correlative business expenses the officer knew the manager was responsible for paying, and where an accounting of those expenses was independently available in the municipal Assessment records but the officer failed to review it.