37 F.4th 389
6th Cir.2022Background
- In 2005 Planes Adolphe was murdered; Johnetta Carr (then 16) was arrested and in 2008 entered an Alford plea to second-degree manslaughter and related charges, receiving a 20-year sentence.
- Carr was paroled in 2009 and discharged in 2018.
- On December 9, 2019, Kentucky Governor Matthew Bevin issued Carr a "full and unconditional" pardon restoring her rights.
- Carr sued Louisville-Jefferson County, the City of Louisville, and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging fabrication of evidence, coerced false statements, and suppression of exculpatory evidence leading to her conviction.
- The district court dismissed Carr’s § 1983 claims under Heck v. Humphrey, concluding the claims would improperly call into question an outstanding conviction; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Carr’s full unconditional pardon satisfies Heck’s invalidation requirement and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carr’s § 1983 claims are barred by Heck because her conviction remains valid | Carr: Governor’s full and unconditional pardon invalidated her conviction under Heck so § 1983 claims may proceed | Defs: Heck bars the claims unless conviction invalidated; Carr’s pardon did not erase conviction or establish innocence under Kentucky law | A full unconditional pardon satisfies Heck’s "invalidated" requirement; § 1983 claims are not barred and dismissal was erroneous |
| Whether a pardon must expressly declare innocence to satisfy Heck | Carr: No; Heck requires only that the conviction be invalidated, not a finding of innocence | Defs: A pardon that does not state innocence should not count as invalidation | Court: No innocence finding required; general/full pardons suffice (following Savory) |
| Whether state law can prevent a federal court from treating a pardon as invalidation under Heck | Carr: Federal law controls § 1983; state law is relevant only to whether the pardon is full/unconditional | Defs: Kentucky law distinguishes pardon from expungement and preserves the conviction’s effect | Court: Federal standard governs; state law used only to determine whether the pardon removed legal consequences — here it did — so Heck is satisfied |
| Disposition of state-law claims after dismissal of § 1983 claims | Carr: State claims should proceed if federal claims reinstated or district court should consider supplemental jurisdiction | Defs: District court previously declined jurisdiction and dismissal should stand | Court: Reversed dismissal of state-law claims and remanded for the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes that § 1983 claims that would imply the invalidity of a conviction are barred unless conviction has been invalidated)
- Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409 (7th Cir.) (en banc) (holds a general/full pardon satisfies Heck’s invalidation requirement; innocence not required)
- Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 154 F.3d 757 (8th Cir.) (interprets "expunged by executive order" in Heck to include pardons in the figurative sense)
- Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332 (Sup. Ct.) (clarifies that a favorable termination requirement in Fourth Amendment § 1983 malicious-prosecution context does not demand an affirmative showing of innocence)
- United States v. Barrett, 504 F.2d 629 (6th Cir.) (describes a "full" pardon as one that unconditionally absolves the legal consequences of a conviction)