Gary Helman v. Steve Smeltzley
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2302
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Helman, a §1983 plaintiff, alleges Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims stemming from his arrest on April 9, 2009 by Indiana State Police.
- During execution of the warrant, Helman displayed a loaded handgun; officers sought a peaceful surrender, parent law enforcement dialogue, and a six-hour stalemate ensued.
- The Indiana State Police ERT deployed a flash-bang device; subsequent events lead to Helman being shot multiple times as he allegedly reached for a weapon.
- Helman pled guilty in state court to Resisting Law Enforcement under a statute later repealed and recodified; the conviction is premised on resisting while officers were lawfully engaged in duties.
- Helman asserts the shooting violated his constitutional rights and seeks §1983 relief for medical costs and permanent injuries.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the officers; on appeal, the court reviews de novo with all favorable in Helman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck v. Humphrey precludes Helman’s §1983 claim. | Helman argues the claim survives if no contradiction with conviction. | Defendants contend the claim implicates invalidity of conviction and is barred. | Heck precludes the claim to the extent it would contradict the conviction. |
| Whether the excessive-force claim is compatible with Evans v. Poskon after conviction. | Helman seeks §1983 relief for excessive force during or after custody not inconsistent with conviction. | Defendants argue only claims compatible with the conviction survive. | Only claims not inconsistent with the conviction proceed. |
| Whether Helman’s theory that he did not reach for a weapon until after shots were fired negates the conviction. | Helman claims drawing occurred post-shooting and not due to reaching for weapon. | Conviction implies he did reach for a weapon in resisting law enforcement. | Theory would imply inconsistent with conviction; cannot proceed. |
| Whether Helman can pursue a §1983 claim premised on shooting while reaching for a firearm. | Helman would rely on alleged unreasonable force during reaching for firearm. | Defendants contend the force was objectively reasonable. | Claim cannot survive where it would be a reasonable response to the reach for a weapon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff may proceed on excessive-force claims not inconsistent with conviction)
- Burd v. Sessler, 702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2012) ( Heck framework; consistency with conviction governs)
- Moore v. Mahone, 652 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2011) ( Heck analysis guides whether §1983 claim survives)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) ( Fourth Amendment reasonableness is objective and context-driven)
- Shoultz v. Indiana, 735 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. App. 2000) (officer not lawfully engaged when excessive force used; affects liability)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) ( Heck v. Humphrey discussed in later context)
- Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) ( framework for de novo review on summary judgment)