Duane Belanus v. Phil Clark, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13648

Background

In August 2008 police searched Belanus’s home, shed, and workplace in connection with criminal charges; he was tried in June 2009, convicted, and sentenced to life without parole.
Belanus filed a § 1983 suit on June 5, 2012 alleging warrantless searches and that illegally obtained evidence was used against him; he sought money damages and paid the filing fee.
The magistrate and district courts dismissed the complaint at screening as barred by Heck to the extent it attacked the conviction and otherwise by Montana’s three‑year statute of limitations; the district court also counted the dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Belanus argued equitable tolling under Montana law (citing Schoof) because officials failed to produce warrants in response to his requests, and he argued § 1915(g) should not apply to fee‑paid suits.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) Heck bars claims that would necessarily imply invalidity of the conviction; (2) Belanus’s claims accrued in August 2008 and were untimely because he knew or should have known of the searches; (3) equitable tolling was unavailable on these facts; and (4) a dismissal can count as a § 1915(g) strike even if the prisoner paid filing fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims are barred by Heck	Belanus contends his § 1983 claims challenge unlawful searches, not necessarily invalidating conviction	Defendants argue successful challenge would imply invalidity of conviction	Court: Heck bars claims that would necessarily imply conviction invalidity; such claims treated without prejudice for future suit if conviction invalidated
Accrual and statute of limitations for § 1983 claims	Belanus argues equitable tolling under Montana law delays accrual because warrants were concealed/nonproduced	Defendants argue claim accrued in Aug 2008 when searches occurred and he knew of them; tolling not warranted	Court: Federal law governs accrual; claims accrued at time of searches; equitable tolling not available on these facts; claims untimely
Application of Montana equitable tolling (Schoof)	Belanus: state law permits tolling where defendant’s conduct conceals claim (he alleges officials failed to provide warrants)	Defendants: no concealment prevented timely filing; Belanus knew or should have known during trial	Court: Schoof not met — allegations show Belanus knew of searches by trial; defendants’ failure to respond doesn’t justify tolling here
Whether a dismissal of a fee‑paid prisoner suit may count as a § 1915(g) "strike"	Belanus: § 1915(g) applies only to IFP filings; fee‑paid suits should not produce strikes	Defendants: statute’s plain language covers "action or appeal" regardless of IFP status; purpose supports deterring frivolous filings by any prisoner	Court: Plain language controls; dismissals can count as strikes even if filing fee paid; district court did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable termination rule: § 1983 claims implying conviction invalidity barred absent invalidation)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal law governs accrual date for § 1983 claims)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (§ 1983 actions characterized as personal injury actions; state statute of limitations applies)
Schoof v. Nesbit, 316 P.3d 831 (Mont. 2014) (Montana equitable tolling where defendant’s conduct concealed claim; tolling limited to rare circumstances)
Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 1995) (Heck‑barred claims should be dismissed without prejudice to permit later reassertion)
Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal law determines accrual for § 1983 claims)
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (standing/appeal issues and § 1915(g) jurisprudence)
Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding a paid dismissal may count as a § 1915(g) strike)
Byrd v. Shannon, 715 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2013) (strikes may accrue regardless of prepaid filing fee)