Havens v. Johnson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6097
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Havens pleaded guilty in Colorado to attempted assault of Officer Johnson and sued Johnson under §1983 for excessive force; district court granted summary judgment and Johnson qualified immunity, affirming Heck preclusion.
- In January 2007, a Denver sting trapped Havens in an icy alcove; Johnson rode in a white pickup among several officers attempting to arrest Havens after Havens drove a stolen Audi into the area.
- The confrontation involved multiple vehicle impacts; Johnson fired nine times at Havens, injuring him severely; officers testified variously about whether the Audi moved toward or away from Johnson.
- Havens asserted he did not resist arrest and did not see officers or weapons; officers claimed the Audi was moving toward Johnson and posed a threat.
- Havens later pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault; the plea record included a partial factual basis stating an officer was in front of Havens’ car as he revved to escape; Havens pursued postconviction relief without success.
- The district court rejected Havens’ claims and Johnson’s Heck-based defenses; the Tenth Circuit ultimately affirmed on the Heck ground, noting the Alford-like plea did not alter Heck’s applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Heck bar Havens' §1983 excessive-force claim | Havens contends claim could survive if framed independent of the assault conviction. | Johnson argues Heck bars all §1983 claims that would undermine his conviction. | Yes; Heck bars the §1983 claim because Havens' theory cannot be reconciled with the assault conviction. |
| Does Havens' Alford plea affect Heck analysis or preclusion | Alford characteristics might permit relief despite conviction. | Heck applies regardless of plea type; Alford does not exempt claims. | Alford plea does not defeat Heck; Heck applies to civil claims regardless of plea form. |
| Do issue preclusion or judicial estoppel apply to bar relief | Prior pleadings could estop Havens from various civil theories. | Preclusion/estoppel are not dispositive here and have complex limits with Alford pleas. | Not dispositive here; estoppel considerations are narrowly applied and not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (factual success must not imply invalidity of conviction; governs §1983 claims)
- Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1999) (illustrates when Heck may permit or bar §1983 claims depending on conviction basis)
- DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2007) (illustrates complete bar when claim challenges the basis of conviction)
- Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2006) (excessive force claims tied to the underlying conviction; Heck considerations)
- Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 1996) (discusses constitutional uses of force and Heck-type analysis)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (valid plea allowing conviction without admission of guilt; impact on collateral issues)