Lockett

Lockett v. Ericson

Good Law
656 F.3d 892·11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18104
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 31, 201109-16609California2,530 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paez, J.

In 2005, officers entered Plaintiff-Appellant Edwin Lockett’s (“Lockett”) home without a warrant and obtained evidence that he had driven under the influence of alcohol earlier in the night. The ensuing state prosecution concluded when Lockett pled nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23103.5(a). Believing the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home in 2005, Lockett filed a federal complaint against the officers and the Mount Shasta Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The district court dismissed Lockett’s § 1983 complaint, concluding that the case was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Lockett appealed the dismissal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, for the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 16, 2005, Lockett attempted to drive home after his birthday party. Lockett did not quite make it: his car slid off the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.