19 F. Supp. 3d 841
N.D. Ind.2014Background
- On April 13, 2012, Trooper Dale E. Turner stopped commercial truck driver Manuel Ocasio Jr.; a physical struggle occurred in the cab, Turner used chemical spray, and Ocasio was arrested.
- State charged Ocasio with resisting law enforcement and battery on an officer; Ocasio pleaded guilty “as charged” to resisting law enforcement on August 9, 2013; other charges were dismissed under a plea agreement.
- Ocasio filed a § 1983 complaint alleging false imprisonment/false arrest (Count I), excessive force (Count II), malicious prosecution (Count III), and illegal search and seizure (Count IV), plus unspecified state claims.
- Turner moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing Heck bar and other defenses; the court took judicial notice of the state-court plea and charging documents.
- The court applied Heck and related precedent to determine which federal claims necessarily imply invalidity of the resisting conviction and which may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether illegal search/seizure claim is Heck-barred | Ocasio contends Turner entered the cab and searched/seized him without legal basis during the stop | Turner argues the search/seizure is part of events showing Ocasio resisted a lawful officer; plea admits officer was lawfully engaged | Dismissed without prejudice — finding that success on this claim would negate an element of resisting conviction (officer lawfully engaged) and thus is Heck-barred |
| Whether false imprisonment/false arrest claim is Heck-barred | Ocasio disputes illegality of arrest and distinguishes initial stop from later arrest | Turner contends the facts in the Information (to which Ocasio pleaded guilty) supply probable cause; probable cause bars false arrest claims | Dismissed without prejudice — probable cause and plea facts would be undermined by a successful false arrest claim (Heck applies) |
| Whether excessive force claim is Heck-barred | Ocasio alleges force (pepper spray) was unreasonable; contends plea does not admit the force was appropriate | Turner argues a successful excessive-force claim would invalidate the resisting conviction | Not barred in part — excessive force claim may proceed but is limited: plaintiff cannot deny the plea facts about resisting before force; he may challenge force used once he resisted and thereafter |
| Whether malicious prosecution claim can proceed | Ocasio asserts Turner maliciously prosecuted him (battery charge) and alleges jury found not guilty on some counts | Turner argues malicious prosecution requires a prior favorable termination; plea-dismissing charging counts is not a favorable termination | Dismissed without prejudice — malicious prosecution fails because the prosecution did not terminate in Ocasio’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction is barred until conviction is invalidated)
- Helman v. Duhaime, 742 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2014) (excessive-force claims post-resisting conviction allowed only if consistent with facts supporting conviction)
- Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing claims that contradict a resisting conviction from those alleging excessive force in effecting or after custody)
- VanGilder v. Baker, 435 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff may be convicted of resisting yet still sue for excessive force in response to that resistance)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive force analyzed under objective reasonableness)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (officer may arrest for minor offense in presence; probable cause suffices for constitutionality of arrest)
- Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) (arguable probable cause bars § 1983 false arrest claim)