Background

• Whatley, a Texas prisoner, sued Beaumont officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in the hand-shooting during an arrest for burglary and inadequate supervision/training by Chief Coffin.
• Whatley was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault of a public servant and pleaded guilty to two counts of the lesser included offense of assault of a public servant, receiving concurrent ten-year sentences.
• District court dismissed Whatley’s § 1983 claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success on those claims would imply invalidity of his convictions.
• Whatley challenged the district court’s sua sponte Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal as unfair; the court found procedures fair and afforded opportunities to contest the dismissal.
• The court held Whatley’s excessive force claims were inherently inconsistent with his assault convictions, thus barred by Heck, and affirmed the dismissal.
• This appeal concerns whether Heck barred the § 1983 claims and whether the district court’s dismissal procedure was proper.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (fairness requires notice and opportunity to respond in sua sponte dismissal)
• Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 2006) (fairness in sua sponte dismissals depends on notice and response opportunity)
• DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2007) ( Heck analysis depends on whether success negates an element or is inherently inconsistent with conviction)
• Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (applies Heck to excessive-force claims)
• Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994) (permits use of public-record materials in Rule 12(b)(6) review)
• Amacker v. Renaissance Asset Mgmt. LLC, 657 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review; plausibility)