Smith v. City of Hemet

Opinion by Judge RAWLINSON; Dissent by Judge W. FLETCHER

OPINION

In this case, we once again address the quagmire created by the interplay between Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) and convictions for violations of California Penal Code § 148. Because the California courts have interpreted § 148 in such a manner as to incorporate a finding of no excessive force, we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling that Heck bars Thomas Smith’s § 1983 action.

I. FACTSIPROCEDURAL HISTORY

This saga began when Smith’s wife, Cynthia, placed an emergency phone call to the Hemet Police Department (“Department”) reporting that her husband “was hitting her and/or was physical with her.”

Officer Reinbolt was the first officer to arrive in response to the call. Upon his approach, Officer Reinbolt observed Smith standing on his front porch. Officer Rein-bolt directed his flashlight towards Smith “and noticed Smith’s hands in his pockets.” 1 Officer Reinbolt announced himself and instructed Smith to remove his hands from his pockets. Smith refused, responding with expletives and directing Officer Reinbolt to approach. Officer Reinbolt informed Smith that he would…

dissenting.

Plaintiff Thomas Smith pled guilty to a violation of California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) and was sentenced to three years’ probation. Section 148(a)(1) makes it a misdemeanor for a person to “willfully resist, delay, or obstruct any ... peace officer ... in the discharge” of his or her duties. Cal.Penal Code § 148(a)(1). Smith filed this § 1983 suit alleging excessive force by the police during the events leading up to his arrest. Smith filed suit while he was still on probation and was therefore “in custody” for purposes of ha-beas corpus. However, when we heard argument in this case he was no longer in custody, and habeas corpus was no longer available as a remedy.

The majority holds that Smith’s § 1983 suit is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). For two independently sufficient reasons, the majority is wrong as a matter of law.

First, in Heck the Court held that a prisoner plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 suit if success in that suit “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364 . In that event, the plaintiffs sole remedy is habeas…