In Lemos v. County of Sonoma, published July 16, 2021, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants in the plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged use of excessive force. One of the defendant officers saw a pickup truck obstructing a lane of traffic and heard screaming. The plaintiff attempted to interfere with the officer’s interview of the pickup’s occupants. The plaintiff started walking away from the truck and did not respond to the officer’s order to stop. The officer grabbed her shoulder and brought her to the ground. The plaintiff was prosecuted for violation of Penal Code section 148(a)(1)—resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties. The jury was instructed that the would have to find that the officer was lawfully performing or attempting to perform his duties as a peace officer, and that a peace officer is not lawfully performing his duties if the officer is using unreasonable or excessive force in his duties. The jury was further instructed that the plaintiff could be found liable on one of four different theories of liability, representing different acts plaintiff performed during the officer’s investigation of the truck. The jury convicted her, using a general verdict. The district court granted summary judgment, on the grounds the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine barred the action.On appeal , the plaintiff contended that the jurors in the criminal trial did not necessarily find that she was guilty of pulling away from the arresting officer at the time he arrested her, and she could therefore sue the officer for using excessive force in response.
The majority affirmed summary judgment. Under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, when a plaintiff who has been convicted of a crime under state law seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. A plaintiff’s allegation of excessive force by a police officer is not barred by Heck if the officer’s conduct is distinct temporally or spatially from the factual basis of the plaintiff’s conduct. Under Heck, the relevant inquiry is whether the record contains factual circumstances that support the underlying conviction under section 148(a)(1), not whether the conviction was obtained by a jury verdict or a guilty plea. A conviction under section 148(a)(1) is valid only when the officer was acting lawfully at the time the offense against the officer was committed. Here, by finding the plaintiff guilty, the jury was finding that the officer acted lawfully through the continuous chain of events that day, even when he placed the plaintiff under arrest.
A dissenting judge opined that the decision would encourage officer overreaction to minor criminal behavior.
Comments