LaFrance Colbert v. Jeremy Chapman, 775 F.3d 1006

Colbert was convicted in state court of disorderly conduct and refusal to submit to arrest (a lesser included offense of resisting arrest).
At a traffic court appearance, Colbert alleges Deputy Chapman and other officers provoked and then used force: grabbing, shouting, handcuffing, throwing him against a wall and floor (causing a nosebleed), tasing twice, hog-tying, and dragging him from the courtroom.
Colbert sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming unreasonable seizure and excessive force by the officers, including Chapman.
The district court dismissed Colbert’s claims against Chapman under Heck v. Humphrey and denied reconsideration; Colbert appealed the excessive-force dismissal only.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the Heck dismissal de novo and considered whether a successful excessive-force claim would necessarily imply invalidity of Colbert’s convictions.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that an excessive-force finding would not necessarily invalidate the state convictions and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Colbert's § 1983 excessive-force claim	Colbert argues excessive force can be proven without negating his resisting/harassment convictions (force may have occurred after resistance or despite lawful conviction)	Chapman argued Heck requires dismissal because a judgment for excessive force would imply invalidity of the state convictions	Reversed: Heck does not bar the excessive-force claim because proving excessive force would not necessarily invalidate the convictions
Whether appellate court should decide failure-to-state-a-claim argument raised for first time on appeal	Colbert did not raise merits challenge in district court; Chapman asked appellate court to affirm on that ground	Chapman urged affirmance on 12(b)(6) ground	Court declined to consider the new Rule 12(b)(6) argument on appeal; left for district court

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 damages action that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction must be dismissed unless conviction invalidated)
Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2007) (Heck dismissal reviewed de novo)
Sullivan v. Gagnier, 225 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2000) (conviction for resisting can coexist with an excessive-force finding)
Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (excessive force after resistance does not undo conviction for earlier resistance)
Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (post-resistance excessive-force claim not barred by Heck)
VanGilder v. Baker, 435 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2006) (rejecting view that resistance permits any subsequent police force without liability)
Huey v. Stine, 230 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2000) (degree of force is analytically distinct from criminal violation)
Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1999) (resisting-arrest conviction can coexist with a finding of excessive force)
Nelson v. Jashurek, 109 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1997) (lawful arrest carried out in an unlawful manner can support § 1983 recovery)