Lockett v. Ericson
656 F.3d 892
9th Cir.2011Background
- In 2005, officers entered Lockett's home without a warrant and obtained evidence of DUI after responding to a car off the road near his residence.
- Lockett pled nolo contendere to California Vehicle Code §23103.5(a) (wet reckless) after a suppression ruling denied by state court.
- The state suppression ruling held the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and the officers' community-caretaker role.
- Lockett filed a federal §1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment violation; the district court stayed then dismissed as Heck-barred after the state case concluded.
- The district court treated Heck as dispositive; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists for a §1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars the §1983 claim | Lockett argues Heck does not bar suit. | Defendants argue Heck bars the claim given ongoing or previously resolved criminal issue. | Heck does not bar the §1983 claim. |
| Whether plea waiver affects the civil §1983 action | Waiver of 1538.5 appeal rights does not bar civil actions. | Waiver already forecloses related appellate review and thus bars the suit. | Plea-waiver does not affect the civil §1983 claim. |
| Whether collateral estoppel defeats the §1983 claim | State court ruling precludes relitigation of Fourth Amendment issue. | Collateral estoppel should apply to bar the civil claim. | No collateral estoppel; §40834 precludes estoppel of issues in civil action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (plaintiff must show conviction invalidated to recover damages for unconstitutional conviction)
- Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2001) (convictions from pleas not dependent on allegedly illegal evidence, so Heck may not bar §1983)
- U.S. v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (contractual scope of plea waivers; ambiguity construed against government)
- United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2008) (ambiguity in plea agreements interpreted against drafter)
- Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1990) (state-law collateral estoppel rules govern federal §1983 action)
- Leader v. State, 182 Cal.App.3d 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (misdemeanor convictions may foreclose collateral estoppel in civil actions under California law)