Kerry Cook v. City of Tyler, Texas
974 F.3d 537
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Kerry Cook sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging wrongful prosecutions, convictions, and imprisonment.
- Cook’s underlying conviction has not been vacated; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had not yet formally terminated his conviction in his favor.
- The district court dismissed Cook’s § 1983 claims citing Heck v. Humphrey and used Johnson-style language: the case was “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the claims being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met.”
- Defendants appealed an earlier district-court order denying parts of their summary-judgment motions; unusually, those defendants had sought dismissal below and now seek appellate review.
- Cook argued the dismissal was nonfinal (not an appealable § 1291 final decision); the Fifth Circuit agreed and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court’s decision was narrow and jurisdictional only; it did not decide statute-of-limitations or merits issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of the district-court dismissal | Cook: dismissal is nonfinal because it permits refiling once Heck conditions are met | Defs: the order was a final judgment and appealable | Held: nonfinal — Johnson-style Heck dismissals are without prejudice and leave litigation open |
| Effect of the Johnson-style language (“with prejudice… until Heck conditions are met”) | Cook: language shows conditional, nonfinal disposition allowing revival later | Defs: wording indicated a final dismissal | Held: the language is understood as non-prejudicial in Johnson line; qualifies finality |
| Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 | Cook: no jurisdiction because the district court did not end litigation on the merits | Defs: appealed anyway, asserting right to review | Held: no jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Whether this appeal presented a threshold question about applicability of Heck that would make dismissal final | Cook: not such a case — defendants predicated dismissal on Heck, not challenging its applicability | Defs: sought review regardless | Held: not a Heck-applicability threshold case; thus not appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (establishing that § 1983 damages claims that would imply invalidity of conviction are barred until conviction is invalidated)
- Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 1996) (describing preferred wording for dismissals conditioned on satisfying Heck and treating such dismissals as without prejudice)
- Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (Heck dismissal treated as non-prejudicial)
- DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649 (5th Cir. 2007) (modifying dismissal with prejudice to without prejudice in Heck context)
- Sealed Appellant 1 v. Sealed Appellee, 199 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2000) (finality requires ending litigation on the merits)
- Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (clarifying final-decision rule for § 1291)
- Gacho v. Butler, 792 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2015) (dismissal without prejudice tied to state proceedings is nonfinal)
- Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d 416 (4th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing Heck-applicability appeals that may be final)
- Vargo v. Stumacher, 125 F.3d 846 (2d Cir. 1997) (dismissal with leave to replead is nonfinal)