Moore v. Mahone
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14528
7th Cir.2011Background
- Moore, an Illinois state-prison inmate, sues two guards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in a cafeteria altercation.
- District court dismissed the excessive-force claim under Heck v. Humphrey before any response from defendants.
- Moore also asserted a claim against medical staff for willful disregard of his injuries, which the district court granted summary judgment on (unrelated to the excessive-force claim).
- Administrative Review Board found Moore guilty of assault, dangerous disturbances, insolence, and disobeying a direct order in May 2007, resulting in segregation, loss of privileges, and some loss of good-time credits.
- The Seventh Circuit analyzes the Heck bar, its analogies to collateral estoppel, and whether the district court should have managed the pleadings to avoid foreclosing meritorious claims; it ultimately reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Moore’s excessive-force claim given disciplinary-board findings | Moore seeks merits review of board findings; should be agnostic about those findings | Heck bars any civil-rights claim that would necessarily imply invalidity of the disciplinary judgment | Heck applies only if essential to the outcome; remand needed to decide dismissal-without-prejudice or instructions to limit challenges to board findings. |
| Whether dismissal should be without prejudice to allow amendment | Plaintiff should be allowed to amend to drop inconsistent allegations | Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate due to Heck | Remand to decide whether dismissal without prejudice or other relief; not necessarily with prejudice. |
| How venue and transfer should be handled on remand | If dismissed, Moore may need to refile in Southern District where incident occurred | Maintain proper venue; potential transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or § 1404(b) | If new complaint filed, consider transfer to Southern District; otherwise permissibly transfer to convenient venue. |
| Whether equitable tolling should be considered given the statute-of-limitations period | Equitable tolling may excuse delay in bringing claim after Heck-related dismissal | Limits on tolling apply; potential bar persists | District court should consider equitable tolling due to complexity of Heck and pro se status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488 (7th Cir.2003) (Heck applies to bar claims that necessarily negate disciplinary findings)
- Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899 (7th Cir.2008) (prisoner may proceed agnostic to disciplinary findings; use trial instructions to apply Heck)
- Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362 (7th Cir.2010) (disregard innocence/culpability allegations to avoid Heck bar; clarify scope of claim)
- Hardrick v. City of Bolingbrook, 522 F.3d 758 (7th Cir.2008) (distinguishes pre- and post-handcuffing force; supports selective consideration of allegations)
- McCann v. Neilsen, 466 F.3d 619 (7th Cir.2006) (preferred approach to handling inconsistent complaint allegations on remand)