Essex Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13802
6th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Aaron, Annie, and Essex Hayward allege excessive force, illegal home entry, and state-law claims against Cleveland Clinic police officers following a pre-dawn encounter at the Haywards’ home.
- Aaron Hayward pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and willfully fleeing after injuring an officer during the incident.
- The district court granted the officers’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing most federal and state-law claims.
- The court applied Heck v. Humphrey to bar Aaron’s § 1983 claims for pre-arrest conduct and dismissed third-party claims by Annie and Essex as barred under Heck.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Sixth Circuit reverses and remands on Annie and Essex’s illegal-entry claim and the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, but affirms on Aaron’s § 1983 claims and Annie/Essex’s assault claim.
- The court holds that Heck does not apply to third-party § 1983 claims and remands for further proceedings on the pre-arrest illegal-entry theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Heck bar Annie/Essex’s illegal-entry claim? | Hayward parents’ claim should proceed; Heck does not apply to third parties. | Heck bars those § 1983 claims tied to Aaron’s arrest and pre-arrest conduct. | Heck does not apply to third-party § 1983 claims; remand to address merits. |
| Whether Aaron’s pre-arrest excessive-force claim is barred by Heck. | Excessive-force claim precedes arrest and should not invalidate a valid underlying arrest. | Pre-arrest excessive force would undermine the resisting-arrest conviction, triggering Heck. | Pre-arrest excessive force could be barred; district court properly dismissed this claim under Heck. |
| Whether Aaron’s illegal home-entry claim is barred or viable under Heck. | Pre-arrest entry can be unlawful, allowing a § 1983 claim separate from the resisting-arrest conviction. | Illegal entry would undermine arrest legality and thus Heck bars the claim. | The district court properly denied barred status; the claim plausibly supported and remanded for merits. |
| Whether Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm’n negates Heck’s favorable-termination requirement here. | Powers creates a Heck exception where habeas relief is unavailable or precluded as a matter of law. | Powers is not satisfied; waiver and lack of exceptional circumstances foreclose its application. | Waiver prevents applying Powers; Heck remains applicable to Aaron’s claims as to pre-arrest conduct. |
| Whether Annie and Essex Hayward plausibly plead intentional infliction of emotional distress. | Six armed officers’ pre-dawn entry and conduct were extreme and outrageous causing severe distress. | Conduct does not meet Ohio’s extreme-and-outrageous standard or causation for the claim. | Plaintiffs plausibly plead IIED against the officers; remand for merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (bars § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of a conviction unless favorable termination.)
- Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (two ways Heck may apply to § 1983 excessive-force/illegal-entry claims.)
- Cummings v. City of Akron, 418 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 2005) (excessive force as an affirmative defense and its relation to resisting-arrest conviction.)
- White v. Ebie, 191 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 1999) (arrest not lawful when excessive force is used; Heck applied.)
- Sigley v. Kuhn, 205 F.3d 1341 (6th Cir. 2000) (post-arrest excessive-force claim may proceed despite resisting-arrest conviction.)
- Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007) (Heck exception when habeas relief is unavailable or precluded as a matter of law.)