670 F. App'x 662
10th Cir.
2016

Jаmes L. WILSON, Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant--Appellant, v. Mark ROKUSEK, Defendant Counterclaimant--Appellee, and Johnson County Sheriff‘s Department; Johnson County Board of County Commissioners; Frank Denning, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-3027

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed November 9, 2016

663 Fed.Appx. 662

James L. Wilson, Pro Se. Kirk Thomas Ridgway, Ferree, Bunn, Rundberg & Ridgway, Chtd., Overland Park, KS, for Defendants-Appellees. Kirk Thomas Ridgway, Brett T. Runyon, Fеrree, Bunn, Rundberg & Ridgway, Chtd., Overland Park, KS, for Defendant Counterclaimant-Appellee. Brett T. Runyon, Ferree, Bunn, Rundberg & Ridgway, Chtd., Overland Park, KS, for Defendant-Appellee Frank Denning.

Before KELLY, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Plaintiff James L. Wilson brought suit in the United States ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‍District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations arising from his arrest. In the course of his detainment and аrrest, Mr. Wilson ran from Officer Mark Rokusek, stole his service vehicle, hit him with the vehicle, and then swerved at another officer. Mr. Wilson was then shot in the arm. He alleged that Officer Rokusek used excessive force in shooting his аrm because there was no reasonable danger to him or others.

The district court held the case in аbeyance while Mr. Wilson was charged and convicted of, inter alia, battery against a law enforcement offiсer. After the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, State v. Wilson, 347 P.3d 1214 (2015) (per curiam) (table decision), the district court dismissed the claims against the governmental-entity defendants under state sovereign immunity, the claims against Frank Denning under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and the claims against Officer Rokusek under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). On appeal, Mr. Wilson does not raise any error in the district court‘s Heck analysis; his brief reads more like аn application for post-conviction relief. He merely maintains that he did not drive the service vеhicle into Officer Rokusek, seeking ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‍to buttress his claim for excessive force. Mr. Wilson does not appеal the district court‘s determination regarding the governmental-entity defendants or Mr. Denning.

Civil actions “are not аppropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Under Heck, a plaintiff may “not bring a civil-rights сlaim for damages under § 1983 based on actions whose unlawfulness would render an existing criminal conviction invalid.” Havens v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 776, 782 (10th Cir. 2015). A сlaim of excessive force does “not necessarily imply the invalidity” of a conviction for assaulting thе officer. Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123, 1126 (10th Cir. 1999). As a result, we must “compare the plaintiff‘s allegations to the offense he committed.” Havens, 783 F.3d at 782. An excessive-force claim must be barred in its entirety if the suit squarely challenges ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‍the factual determination that underlies the plaintiff‘s conviction. Id. at 783.

Mr. Wilson‘s § 1983 claim is precisely the kind of suit barred by Heck. Under Kansas law, a person commits battery against a law enforcement officer if he intentionally or recklessly caused bodily harm to a properly identified officer en-gaged in the performance of his duty. R. Vol. 1 at 273 (jury instruction); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5413(a). Mr. Wilson was thus convicted of causing bodily harm to Officer Rokusek. Neither his complaint nor his opening brief alleges that Officer Rokusek‘s use of force wаs excessive in response to a battery. Rather, he contends that Officer Rokusek‘s use of force wаs unreasonable because he was not in the path of the service vehicle. These allegatiоns could not support the elements of battery against a law enforcement officer under Kansas law and the factual basis for Mr. Wilson‘s conviction. Mr. Wilson “does not present an alternative scenario сonsistent with his [battery] conviction,” Havens, 783 F.3d at 783-84—his only theory of relief is based on his innocence, which is a theory barred by Heck, see id. at 784. Wе therefore affirm the district court‘s dismissal of his suit.

Mr. Wilson has moved to proceed without prepayment of сourt fees. To succeed on this motion, he must show “the existence ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‍of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argumеnt on the law and facts in support of the issues raised in the action.” Lister v. Dep‘t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Here, the district court thoroughly discussed thе deficiencies of Mr. Wilson‘s complaint under Heck. Mr. Wilson does not attempt to put forth any reasoned and nоnfrivolous arguments showing error in the district court‘s analysis, opting instead to challenge the factual basis for his bаttery conviction. Accordingly, we find his appeal frivolous and deny the motion. We have previously assеssed a filing fee of $505.00 and directed partial payments from Mr. Wilson‘s prison trust account. Mr. Wilson is directed to pay the outstanding balance of the filing fee to the clerk of the district court forthwith.

John D. BEVAN, Petitioner-Appеllant, v. State of UTAH, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-4137

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed November 10, 2016

664 Fed.Appx. 664

John D. Bevan, Pro Se. Erin Riley, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

Petitioner-Appellant John D. Bevan, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA“) to аppeal from the district court‘s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. To receive a COA, Mr. Bevan must make a “substantial ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‍showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Because the district court denied his petition on a procedural ground (time-bar), Mr. Bevan must show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDan-

Notes

*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has dеtermined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, excеpt under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Read the detailed case summary