Opinion
Case No. 1:11-cv-310
03-19-2012
HENRY D. HULL, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF DAVID GILBERT, et al., Defendants.
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.
_________________
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge