Joseph Curry v. Brianne Yachera
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16183
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Curry was arrested on misdemeanor theft and conspiracy charges after a Wal‑Mart security employee identified him; bail set at $20,000 and he remained jailed because he could not afford it.
- While incarcerated on those charges, Exeter Township Detective McClure filed separate theft-related charges; McClure later told Curry he was innocent and dropped those charges in Feb 2013.
- Curry pleaded nolo contendere to the original charges to secure release, received probation and restitution, but maintains innocence and later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment against Trooper Yachera, McClure, Wal‑Mart, and others.
- The District Court dismissed the Section 1983 malicious prosecution claims under Rule 12(b)(6); it applied Heck to bar claims related to the conviction and held McClure did not effect a new seizure.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal but modified the dismissal of Heck‑barred claims to be without prejudice; it also held McClure could not be liable because he never caused a new deprivation of liberty while Curry was already jailed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck doctrine bars Curry's §1983 malicious prosecution claim tied to his nolo contendere plea | Heck should not bar because Curry is no longer in custody and maintains innocence | Heck bars damages claims that would imply invalidity of a conviction resulting from a nolo plea | Court: Heck applies; nolo contendere treated as conviction, so those claims are barred (but dismissal must be without prejudice) |
| Whether the §1983 malicious prosecution claim against McClure survives (deprivation of liberty element) | McClure initiated charges causing additional deprivation of liberty despite prior incarceration | McClure did not cause a new seizure because Curry was already detained on Yachera's charges | Court: Claim fails — no new deprivation of liberty from McClure's charges, so malicious prosecution claim dismissed |
| Proper disposition when Heck bars a claim at motion to dismiss | Curry suggested merits should be reached now that he is out of custody | Defendants argued dismissal with prejudice appropriate given conviction | Court: Heck dismissal is appropriate at 12(b)(6) but must be without prejudice so plaintiff can refile if conviction is invalidated |
| Scope of Heck where charges by multiple actors exist | Curry argued his suit could proceed as to some defendants because conviction did not arise from all charges | Defendants argued Heck bars suit to the extent success would imply invalidity of conviction | Court: Heck bars claims that would imply invalidity of the conviction tied to the nolo plea; Heck does not apply to charges unrelated to that plea (e.g., McClure) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (recognizing favorable‑termination rule for §1983 claims that would imply invalidity of a conviction)
- Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75 (3d Cir. 2007) (elements of Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim)
- United States v. Poellnitz, 372 F.3d 562 (3d Cir. 2004) (nolo contendere treated as conviction for collateral‑attack purposes)
- Bronowicz v. Allegheny County, 804 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2015) (discussion of Heck’s favorable‑termination rule)
- Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2006) (Heck can be raised at motion to dismiss stage)
- Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1998) (analyzing what constitutes a post‑arraignment deprivation of liberty for malicious prosecution)