Morgan Sanders v. City of Pittsburg
27 F.4th 968
9th Cir.2021Background
- In 2017 Sanders stole a car, led police on a high-speed vehicular chase, then fled on foot and was tackled in a gully after a pursuit.
- Officer Thomas Bryan, handling a K-9, warned Sanders the dog would be deployed; during a struggle in the gully Bryan ordered the dog to bite Sanders’s right calf while other officers were restraining his arms.
- Sanders was handcuffed and arrested and later pleaded no contest to, among other counts, misdemeanor resisting arrest under Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1), stipulating that the factual basis for the plea was the preliminary-hearing transcript (which included testimony about the dog bite).
- While the criminal case was pending Sanders filed a § 1983 excessive-force claim alleging the dog bite was unlawful; the district court dismissed the complaint under Heck v. Humphrey as inconsistent with his conviction.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed: because Sanders’s plea expressly incorporated the preliminary-hearing factual basis (including the bite), success on the § 1983 claim would necessarily imply invalidity of the § 148(a)(1) conviction.
- The court also rejected for waiver Sanders’s new oral-argument claim that a further bite occurred after he was handcuffed, and affirmed dismissal of related municipal and failure-to-intervene claims that Sanders did not press on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Sanders’s § 1983 excessive‑force claim based on the K‑9 bite | Sanders: conviction could have rested on earlier flight/resistance before the bite, so a successful § 1983 claim would not necessarily invalidate the conviction | Defendants: Sanders’s plea adopted the preliminary‑hearing factual basis, which included the bite; success on § 1983 would undermine the conviction and is Heck‑barred | Heck bars the claim because the plea’s factual basis incorporated the dog bite, making the bite part of the acts supporting the § 148(a)(1) conviction |
| Whether Hooper allows separating the alleged unlawful bite from the acts supporting the § 148(a)(1) conviction | Sanders: relies on Hooper to argue a continuous transaction can be split so the bite can be treated as a separate, unlawful act | Defendants: Hooper applies only where the record does not fix which acts supported the conviction; here Sanders stipulated to the factual basis including the bite | Hooper is inapplicable; where the conviction’s factual basis expressly includes the bite, the bite cannot be carved out to avoid Heck (follow Yount) |
| Whether the late‑raised claim of a post‑handcuff bite and related municipal/failure‑to‑intervene claims survive | Sanders (at oral argument): alleged an additional bite after handcuffing; pressed other claims | Defendants: the post‑handcuff allegation was not pleaded or briefed and is waived; other claims were either based on the Heck‑barred theory or not argued on appeal | The post‑handcuff allegation was waived; dismissal of the main § 1983 claim is affirmed; other claims were forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a § 1983 claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction must be dismissed unless the conviction has been invalidated)
- Hooper v. County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (a continuous transaction may be split into separate acts so a § 1983 claim can proceed if the unlawful act is distinct from the acts supporting a § 148(a)(1) conviction)
- Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885 (2008) (for § 148(a)(1) convictions based on multiple acts, the factual basis is indivisible; inconsistent civil claims are barred)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (applies Heck to § 148(a)(1) resisting‑arrest convictions; officer lawfulness is established by such a conviction)
- Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2012) (a § 1983 claim is barred if it alleges facts inconsistent with the plaintiff’s conviction)