Hull v. Gilbert et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 23 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Mark Stefanatos, Shawn Sizemore, David Gilbert, Jeff Wells, Jason Thomas. Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 4/27/2012 09:00 AM (Fort Wayne time) before Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 3/19/2012. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

HENRY D. HULL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF DAVID GILBERT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-310

OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Fourth Amendment case brought by
pro se Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket # 23.) Plaintiff filed a timely response objecting
to the requested stay, and Defendants have now replied. (Docket # 27, 28.)
In essence, Defendants wish to have this case stayed because Hull’s state court criminal
case and an asset forfeiture proceeding are still pending. They explain that since Plaintiff
contends here (and presumably in the state court as well) that his arrest stemmed from an illegal
search and seizure, they will be able to advance a defense to his Fourth Amendment claims under
the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), if he is convicted. Heck held that “in
order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a §
1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been [overturned].” Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997) (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S.
at 486-87). Consequently, if Plaintiff had already been convicted, and if his claims would imply
the invalidity of his criminal conviction, those claims would be Heck-barred.

In their motion, Defendants seem to assume that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction. Yet, “[t]he Seventh Circuit has
repeatedly held that most Fourth Amendment claims can go forward despite the ruling in Heck.”
Sanders v. Cruz, No. 08 C 3318, 2010 WL 3004636, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2010) (citing
Wallace v. City of Chicago, 440 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir. 2006)); see Easterling v. Moeller, 334 F.
App’x 22, 24 (7th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). “Further, because an illegal search or arrest may
be followed by a valid conviction, a conviction generally need not be set aside in order for a
plaintiff to pursue a § 1983 claim under the Fourth Amendment.” Sanders, 2010 WL 3004636, at
*4 (citing Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 136 (7th Cir. 1995)); see Easterling, 334 F. App’x at
23 (collecting cases). In that regard, “because of doctrines like independent source, inevitable
discovery, and harmless error, a successful § 1983 action challenging the legality of a search
‘would not necessarily imply the plaintiff’s conviction was unlawful.’” Simpson, 73 F.3d at 136
(emphasis in original) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7); see Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug
Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 897 (7th Cir. 2001) (“One can have a successful
wrongful arrest claim and still have a perfectly valid conviction.” (quoting Booker v. Ward, 94
F.3d 1052, 2056 (7th Cir. 1996))).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s “claims relating to an illegal search and an improper arrest are not
barred by Heck because neither claim, if successful, would necessarily undermine the validity of
[a] conviction” for possessing marijuana or operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license.
Id. at 136; (see Am. Compl. 2-3). Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (Docket #
23) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that this case is set for an initial telephone scheduling conference

on April 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this 19th day of March, 2012.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge