Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277, 10th Cir. (2007)
Butler v. Compton, 482 F.3d 1277, 10th Cir. (2007)
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP C. BUTLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 06-1274
SH A W N C OM PTO N ,
Defendant-Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Philip C. Butler, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
courts decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Shawn
Compton and denying M r. Butlers motion to amend his complaint. W e have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
I. Background
On October 7, 2004, M r. Butler filed an amended complaint under
42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that Officer Compton, a Colorado Springs Police
Officer, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using deception to gain entry
into his motel room and arresting him without a warrant. The specific factual
allegations are described in this courts earlier decision in Butler v. Compton,
158 F. Appx 108, 109 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
Officer Compton filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
arguing that it was permissible to use deception to enter the room and that he was
authorized to arrest M r. Butler. The motion was granted by the district court and
the complaint was dismissed. M r. Butler appealed the decision. This court
concluded that M r. Butler set forth a cognizable claim that Compton violated his
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Id. at 111. W e
remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to
consider whether the Supreme Courts ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) is a bar to Butlers further pursuit
-2-
of this action because the record was not clear as to the disposition of the tw o
counts of burglary filed against Butler which arose out of the search of his motel
room. 158 F. Appx at 111-12.
On remand, Officer Compton moved for summary judgment, arguing that
Heck barred M r. Butlers claims because he pled guilty to three counts of burglary
and those guilty pleas arose from the same incident as M r. Butlers 1983 action.
In response, M r. Butler explained that the burglary charges that he pled guilty to
were unrelated to the incident with Officer Compton and that the charges related
to that incident had been dismissed. Officer Compton admitted in his reply brief
that M r. Butler had not in fact pled guilty to the charges that were related to his
arrest of M r. Butler. He asserted, however, that those charges were dismissed as
part of a plea agreement that included the guilty pleas on the other unrelated
charges. As a result, he argued that Heck would still bar M r. Butlers claim
because a successful challenge related to the charges that were dismissed would
invalidate the plea agreement and M r. Butlers conviction on the other charges.
The district court agreed with Officer Comptons position and granted summary
judgment in his favor. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
W e review de novo the district courts summary judgment decision,
applying the same standard as the district court. Simms v. Okla. ex. rel. Dept of
M ental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999).
-3-
The purpose behind Heck is to prevent litigants from using a 1983 action,
with its more lenient pleading rules, to challenge their conviction or sentence
without complying with the more stringent exhaustion requirements for habeas
actions. See M uham mad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751-52 (2004) (per curiam). The
starting point for the application of Heck then is the existence of an underlying
conviction or sentence that is tied to the conduct alleged in the 1983 action. In
other words, a 1983 action implicates Heck only as it relates to the conviction
that it w ould be directly invalidating. There is no such conviction here.
The District Courts Expansion of Heck
Although M r. Butler was not convicted of the burglary charges arising out
of O fficer Comptons arrest, he w as convicted of three other unrelated burglary
charges after he pled guilty to those charges. He pled guilty to these unrelated
burglary charges as part of the same plea agreement in which the burglary charges
arising out of Officer Comptons arrest were dismissed. In this 1983 action, he
does not challenge any conduct relating to his conviction on the three burglary
charges to which he pled guilty. His sole challenge is to the constitutionality of
Officer Comptons conduct during his arrest for the burglary charges that were
dismissed.
Recognizing that this was an issue of first impression, the district court
concluded that it was appropriate to use M r. Butlers conviction on the unrelated
burglary charges as the basis for applying Heck to M r. Butlers case. The district
-6-
-7-
prehearing detention. See 540 U.S. at 753. His 1983 action did not challenge
the underlying disciplinary conviction. As the Court explained:
Hecks requirement to resort to state litigation and federal habeas
before 1983 is not, however, implicated by a prisoners challenge
that threatens no consequence for his conviction or the duration of
his sentence. There is no need to preserve the habeas exhaustion rule
and no impediment under Heck in such a case, of which this is an
example.
M uhammad, 540 U.S. at 751-52 (footnote omitted).
M r. Butlers 1983 action seeks compensatory and punitive damages based
on conduct that occurred during an arrest by Officer Compton that resulted in tw o
burglary charges. M r. Butler was not convicted on those charges because they
were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. There is no related underlying
conviction therefore that could be invalidated by M r. Butlers 1983 action.
M oreover, the purpose behind Heck is not implicated here because there is no
attempt by M r. Butler to avoid the pleading requirements of habeas. He cannot
bring a habeas action because he has no conviction to challenge. M r. Butlers
conviction on unrelated charges may not form the basis for the application of
Heck where there is no challenge to that conviction in M r. Butlers 1983 action.
III. Conclusion
The district court erred in applying Heck to bar M r. Butlers 1983 action.
Accordingly, the district courts denial of M r. Butlers motion to file an amended
complaint on the basis that it would be futile also was in error. The judgment of
-8-
the district court is REVERSED and REM ANDED for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
-9-