WATSON v. MCPHATTER et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 2/1/2021. RECOMMENDED that Detective Altizer's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 51 ) be denied. (Daniel, J)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

TRAVIS L. WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE MCPHATTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:17cv934

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff instituted this action demanding damages under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged “illegal search and seizure” (Docket
Entry 2 at 3) at his apartment on December 29, 2016 (see id. at 4).
The Court (per United States District Judge Loretta C. Biggs)
previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, except
as “to Detective Altizer on Plaintiff’s fourth-amendment claim for
illegal searches of his mail.”
Docket Entry 46).)1

(Docket Entry 53 at 1 (adopting

Detective Altizer now has filed a Supplemental

1 The Recommendation adopted by Judge Biggs more specifically
states that “a material factual dispute exists regarding whether,
without consent, Detective Altizer (twice) searched through
Plaintiff’s mail (A) after Plaintiff’s removal from the scene,
(B) after clearing the apartment for other people, and (C) prior to
the arrival of a search warrant, a dispute which, if resolved
against Detective Altizer, would support a finding that she
violated the Fourth Amendment.”
(Docket Entry 46 at 34.)
Conversely, said Recommendation concludes that, “[t]o the extent
Plaintiff challenges the seizure of his apartment pending the
arrival of the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of a
firearm therein (see Docket Entry 42 at 4), those contentions lack
merit . . . .” (Docket Entry 46 at 35 n.15; see also id. (finding
that record established “(1) that officers seized the apartment for
(continued...)

Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 51), seeking “summary
judgment for [Detective Altizer] pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994) as Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction or
sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state court tribunal or called into
question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus” (Docket Entry
51 at 1 (parallel citations omitted); see also Docket Entry 50-4
(copy of State v. Watson, No. COA 18-1254, 841 S.E.2d 840 (table),
2020 WL 2529816 (N.C. App. May 19, 2020) (unpublished) (affirming
Plaintiff’s convictions (based on guilty verdicts at trial) for
robbery with a dangerous weapon, felon-firearm possession, and
habitual felon status, including by ruling that he waived review of
trial court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence seized from his
apartment on December 29, 2016))).2

1(...continued)
at most one hour pending the arrival of the search warrant and
(2) that the[y ] discovered the firearm during the search of [the]
apartment conducted after the search warrant’s arrival”).)
2 Shortly after Detective Altizer filed the instant Motion,
Plaintiff noticed an (unauthorized) interlocutory appeal of the
Court’s above-referenced Order granting partial summary judgment
for Defendants. (See Docket Entry 54.) “The filing of a notice of
appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court
of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56,
58 (1982) (emphasis added).
“Because the [issue raised in the
instant Motion] is not an ‘aspect of the case involved in the
appeal,’ the Court retains jurisdiction over [the instant Motion].”
Harris v. McCrory, No. 1:13CV949, 2016 WL 3129213, at *1 (M.D.N.C.
June 2, 2016) (unpublished) (per curiam) (internal brackets
(continued...)
2

“Heck generally bars § 1983 prisoner claims which would
necessarily

imply

the

invalidity

of

a

conviction

unless

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”

the

Baker v.

City of Durham, No. 1:14CV878, 2018 WL 3421334, at *11 (M.D.N.C.
July

13,

2018)

(unpublished)

(Webster,

M.J.),

recommendation

adopted, 2018 WL 4674576 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2018) (Osteen, J.)
(unpublished).

However, the Heck Court made clear that, “if the

district court determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if
successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding
criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be
allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.”
Heck, 512 U.S at 487 (italics and internal footnote omitted).

By

way of “example,” the Heck Court explained that “a suit for damages
attributable to an allegedly unreasonable search may lie even if
the challenged search produced evidence that was introduced in a
state criminal trial resulting in the § 1983 plaintiff’s stilloutstanding conviction.” Id. at 487 n.7; see also id. (“Because of
doctrines like independent source and inevitable discovery, and

2(...continued)
omitted) (quoting Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58), aff’d sub nom., Harris
v. Cooper, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2711 (2018); see also United
States v. Jones, 367 F. App’x 482, 484 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he
district court does not lose jurisdiction when the litigant takes
an appeal from an unappealable order.”); Lasercomb Am., Inc. v.
Holiday Steel Rule Die Corp., No. 87-3071, 829 F.2d 36 (table),
1987 WL 44693, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 1987) (unpublished) (“The
grant of partial summary judgment was not a final order and
therefore is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”).
3

especially

harmless

successful,

would

error,

not

such

a

necessarily

§

1983

imply

action,

that

the

“[a]s

Heck

itself

recognizes,

civil

if

plaintiff’s

conviction was unlawful.” (internal citations omitted)).
words,

even

claims

In other
based

on

unreasonable searches do not necessarily imply that the resulting
criminal convictions were unlawful.”

Covey v. Assessor of Ohio

Cty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2015) (italics in original).
“Here, Plaintiff’s [surviving] claim[] do[es] not necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction.”
at *12.

Baker, 2018 WL 3421334,

In particular, “it is unclear that [any search of

Plaintiff’s mail resulted in] the seiz[ure of] items [] used as
evidence to secure Plaintiff’s conviction at all.”

Id.3

Moreover,

“it is not apparent that Plaintiff’s conviction cannot stand
without

[any]

seizure.”

Id.

evidence

obtained

from

[any

such]

search

and

Of significance in that regard, “there is other

evidence of Plaintiff’s involvement in the [crimes] beyond [any
evidence] seized from Plaintiff’s [mail],” id. See Watson, 2020 WL
2529816, at *9 (“Evidence presented to the jury establishing
[Plaintiff’s] responsibility for the crime[s] included:
footage;

[the

[Plaintiff]

in

robbery
the

victim’s]

photographic

original
lineup

security

identification
and

her

of

in-court

3 Neither Detective Altizer’s instant Motion nor her
supporting brief “identify what evidence from the search [of
Plaintiff’s mail, if any,] supported Plaintiff’s conviction,”
Baker, 2018 WL 3421334, at *12. (See Docket Entries 51, 52.)
4

identification of [him]; the distinctive revolver seized from the
bag of the vacuum cleaner in [Plaintiff’s] home that precisely
matched the description given by [the robbery victim] and the
security footage; [Plaintiff’s] admission in the interview with
detectives that he purchased the gun discovered in his home; and
photographs of [Plaintiff’s] shoes, which matched the shoes in the
security footage, as well as photographs of [Plaintiff] wearing
goggle sunglasses matching those used during the robbery.”).
Under these circumstances, “Heck does not bar Plaintiff’s
[surviving] claim,” Baker, 2018 WL 3421334, at *12.4
IT

IS

THEREFORE

RECOMMENDED

that

Detective

Altizer’s

Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 51) be
denied.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
February 1, 2021

4 “In order to recover compensatory damages, however, [
P]laintiff must prove not only that the [alleged mail] search was
unlawful, but that it caused him actual, compensable injury, which,
[Heck] hold[s ] does not encompass the ‘injury’ of being convicted
and imprisoned (until his conviction has been overturned).” Heck,
512 U.S at 487 n.7 (italics and internal citation omitted); see
also Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 2020)
(recognizing that “Prison Litigation Reform Act . . . bars suits
for mental or emotional injury unless there is a prior showing of
physical injury”).
5