Maloley v. Central Neb. Pub. Power & Irr. Dist., 931 N.W.2d 139

Background

Maloley lived at a leased lot at Johnson Lake occupied by his mother and had personal property and a business presence there.
In 2012 a neighbor obtained a harassment protection order against Maloley; Central’s counsel sent a letter advising the leaseholder to remove Maloley, and counsel negotiated an exit plan in which Maloley left knowing he was not to return.
In August 2013 Central personally served Maloley with a written ban notice forbidding him from entering Central’s real estate in Dawson and Gosper Counties.
Between August and December 2013 Maloley was arrested multiple times for trespass on Central property and was ultimately convicted in two county-court trespass cases; those convictions were not reversed, expunged, or invalidated.
Maloley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of procedural and substantive due process, First Amendment and equal protection violations related to the ban and exclusion; the district court held a bench trial, ruled for the defendants, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On cross-appeal the defendants argued the § 1983 claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success in the civil suit would necessarily invalidate the trespass convictions; the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maloley’s § 1983 claims are cognizable while his trespass convictions stand	Maloley: claims challenge the process used to ban him, not the convictions themselves, so civil claims may proceed	Central: Heck bars § 1983 claims that, if successful, would undermine valid criminal convictions for trespass	Held: Heck bars the § 1983 claims because success would necessarily call into question the trespass convictions
Whether Maloley had a property or liberty interest in remaining at Johnson Lake after the 2012 exit plan	Maloley: maintained occupancy, personal property, and business ties giving protectable interests	Central: Maloley was a mere occupier with no leasehold interest and waived rights by leaving under the negotiated exit plan	Held: Court agreed Maloley had no protected interest after he left and waived rights; returning made him a trespasser
Whether the 2012 communication process satisfied due process for property removal and access to belongings	Maloley: process was inadequate to protect his property and interests	Central: the process (notice and opportunity to remove property) was fair and minimized risk, satisfying Mathews v. Eldridge factors	Held: Process was adequate under Mathews; Maloley had opportunity to remove property and risk of error was low
Whether First Amendment or equal protection rights were violated by the ban/exclusion	Maloley: exclusion interfered with association, occupation, and recreation	Central: restrictions were rationally related to legitimate interests (peace, safety) and classification was rational	Held: No First Amendment or equal protection violation; classification and measures were rationally related to legitimate interests

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim that would invalidate an outstanding conviction is not cognizable unless conviction is reversed or otherwise invalidated)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (framework for determining what procedural protections due process requires)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (Heck principle applies to § 1983 actions regardless of relief sought when success would imply invalidity of conviction)
Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (if criminal conviction is fundamentally inconsistent with the alleged unlawful behavior for which § 1983 damages are sought, the § 1983 claim must be dismissed)
Cole v. Loock, 259 Neb. 292 (2000) (application of Heck doctrine in Nebraska state jurisprudence)