Wilson v. Rokusek
670 F. App'x 662
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- James L. Wilson was detained after fleeing, stealing a police service vehicle, striking Officer Mark Rokusek with it, and swerving at another officer; Rokusek shot Wilson in the arm during the incident.
- Wilson brought a § 1983 excessive-force claim against Officer Rokusek and other defendants, alleging the shooting was unreasonable because Rokusek was not in the vehicle’s path.
- While the civil case was pending, Wilson was convicted of battery against a law enforcement officer; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
- The district court dismissed Wilson’s § 1983 claims against Rokusek under Heck v. Humphrey and dismissed claims against governmental entities (sovereign immunity) and against Frank Denning (Monell-related) for other reasons.
- On appeal, Wilson did not challenge the district court’s dismissal of the governmental-entity or Monell claims and primarily contested factual aspects of his criminal conviction to support the excessive-force claim.
- The Tenth Circuit held Wilson’s civil suit was barred by Heck because allowing the § 1983 claim would necessarily undermine the factual basis of the battery conviction; the court also denied Wilson’s motion to proceed IFP as frivolous and ordered payment of the outstanding filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson’s § 1983 excessive-force claim is barred by Heck because it would invalidate his criminal conviction | Wilson argues Rokusek used excessive force and contends he did not drive the vehicle into Rokusek (implying innocence of the battery) | Defendants argue the excessive-force claim attacks facts underlying Wilson’s battery conviction and is therefore barred by Heck | Held: Barred. The civil claim would negate the factual basis of the battery conviction and is therefore precluded under Heck |
| Whether an excessive-force claim can coexist with a conviction for assaulting an officer | Wilson contends excessive force claim is independent because Rokusek was not in the vehicle’s path | Defendants contend the alleged facts needed to prevail on the § 1983 claim conflict with the elements/factual finding of the battery conviction | Held: An excessive-force claim that conflicts with the conviction’s factual basis cannot proceed; Wilson offers no alternative scenario consistent with his conviction |
| Whether Wilson’s appellate brief preserved error as to the district court’s dismissals of municipal/Monell claims | Wilson did not appeal those dismissals | Defendants maintain no challenge was preserved | Held: Wilson did not challenge those rulings on appeal, so they stand affirmed |
| Whether Wilson may proceed IFP on appeal | Wilson moved to proceed without prepayment claiming nonfrivolous arguments | Defendants argue the appeal is frivolous because it merely attacks the criminal conviction facts rather than the district court’s legal analysis | Held: Denied. The court finds the appeal frivolous and directs payment of outstanding filing fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (civil suit barred if success would invalidate a criminal conviction)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Havens v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 776 (10th Cir.) (compare plaintiff’s allegations to offense convicted under Heck analysis)
- Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir.) (excessive-force claim does not always imply invalidity of related conviction)
- Lister v. Department of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir.) (IFP on appeal requires reasoned, nonfrivolous argument)