Leon F. Harrigan v. Ernesto Rodriguez, 977 F.3d 1185

At a red light in Goulds, Florida, Officer Rodriguez fired five shots at Leon Harrigan’s truck; one struck Harrigan in the leg. Harrigan contends he was stationary and shot without provocation; officers testified alternatively that Harrigan accelerated and struck or attempted to strike an officer before Rodriguez fired.
Harrigan fled after being shot, led police on a high-speed chase, crashed, and was arrested. He was later convicted in Florida of multiple offenses including aggravated assault on an officer and fleeing to elude; convictions were affirmed on appeal and collateral relief was denied.
Harrigan sued Rodriguez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force while his criminal case was pending. The district court eventually granted summary judgment for Rodriguez, concluding Heck v. Humphrey barred the § 1983 claim.
The magistrate judge’s Report & Recommendation (R&R) concluded Heck barred the suit; Harrigan did not file objections to that R&R. The Eleventh Circuit addressed whether Harrigan waived appellate review and whether Heck applied.
The Eleventh Circuit held Harrigan did not waive appeal because the R&R failed to give the clear notice required by 11th Cir. R.3-1, and on the merits reversed summary judgment, concluding Heck does not bar Harrigan’s § 1983 excessive-force claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of appeal for failure to object to magistrate judge R&R	Harrigan: R&R did not clearly warn that failure to object would waive legal issues on appeal	Rodriguez: Harrigan waived appellate review by not objecting	Court: No waiver — R&R lacked the clear Rule 3-1 notice, so appeal preserved
Whether Heck bars Harrigan’s § 1983 excessive-force claim	Harrigan: Success on § 1983 would not necessarily invalidate convictions; both outcomes can coexist	Rodriguez: A successful § 1983 claim would necessarily imply invalidity of aggravated-assault and fleeing convictions	Court: Heck does not bar the suit — it is logically possible a jury could find Rodriguez shot first and Harrigan later committed assault/fleeing
Effect of state jury’s general guilty verdicts / rejected necessity defense	Harrigan: Jury’s rejection of necessity does not establish facts negating his § 1983 claim	Rodriguez: General convictions show jury disbelieved Harrigan’s version, so Heck applies	Court: General verdicts do not reveal which factual theory the jury adopted; they do not necessarily preclude a successful § 1983 claim

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (bar on § 1983 claims that would necessarily imply conviction invalidity)
Dyer v. Lee, 488 F.3d 876 (11th Cir. 2007) (articulating the “logical necessity” test for Heck in this Circuit)
Sconiers v. Lockhart, 946 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2019) (Heck inapplicable when § 1983 success need not contradict conviction)
Dixon v. Hodges, 887 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining inconsistent-factual-allegations rule is narrow)
Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (Heck inquiry is theoretical/possibility-based)
Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (Supreme Court stressing importance of the word "necessarily" in Heck)
Hunter v. City of Leeds, 941 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2019) (example where excessive force and criminal conviction can coexist)
Henley v. Payne, 945 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2019) (noting civil suits are improper vehicles to collaterally attack valid criminal judgments)