820 F.3d 237
7th Cir.2016Background
- Tolliver pled guilty to aggravated battery of a peace officer and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
- Tolliver sued Officers Sobieraj and Debose and the City for excessive force, conspiracy to conceal excessive force, and indemnification.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding Tolliver’s claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
- Tolliver’s version of events—unarmed, stationary in car, paralyzed after first shot, car then rolls toward officers—would negate the required mental state for aggravated battery.
- Court credits Tolliver’s version for summary judgment purposes and finds Heck bars the civil claims if they necessarily imply invalidity of the conviction.
- Court also holds qualified immunity applicable to officers’ actions after the car began moving toward them; Heck remains dispositive for Tolliver’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Heck bar Tolliver’s excessive-force claim? | Tolliver argues excessive force occurred and is independent of conviction. | Defendants contend Heck bars any civil claim that would imply invalidity of Tolliver’s conviction. | Yes; Heck bars the claim because it necessarily implies invalidity of the conviction. |
| Do Tolliver’s conspiracy to conceal and indemnification claims survive Heck’s bar? | Claims are independent theories of relief from constitutional violation. | Those claims depend on success of the excessive-force claim and are barred by Heck. | No; Heck bars these claims as they depend on the barred excessive-force claim. |
| Are the officers entitled to qualified immunity for shots fired after Tolliver’s car began moving toward them? | The first shot was fired while the car was stationary; further shots continued as it moved slowly. | Reasonable officers could view the moving car as threatening; qualified immunity applies. | Yes; qualified immunity applies to all actions once the car began to move toward the officers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (plaintiff must show conviction overturned to sue under §1983)
- Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488 (7th Cir.2003) (claims cannot undermine valid conviction; master of ground)
- Gilbert v. Cook, 512 F.3d 899 (7th Cir.2008) (post-crime excessive-force claims may proceed without implicating Heck)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force to prevent escape when suspect threatens with a weapon)
- Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752 (7th Cir.2003) (totality-of-circumstances in excessive-force analysis; automobile can be deadly weapon)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity; objective reasonableness under precedent)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (bar under Heck when suit challenges validity of conviction)
- Garcia-Meza v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 535 (7th Cir.2008) (illustrates Heck-grounded dismissal where civil claims negate conviction)
- Chelios v. Heavener, 520 F.3d 678 (7th Cir.2008) (illustrates possible viable post-crime excessive-force claim separate from Heck issues)