Wendell Griffin v. Baltimore Police Department, 4th Cir. (2015)
Wendell Griffin v. Baltimore Police Department, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-1494
WENDELL GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT; JERRY LANDSMAN; DONALD KINCAID;
EDWARD BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03387-JFM)
Argued:
Decided:
Wendell
Griffin
seeks
damages
for
police
and
imply
512
the
U.S.
invalidity
477,
487
of
(1994).
a
For
plaintiffs
the
prior
reasons
that
follow, we affirm.
I.
On
March
8,
1982,
Griffin
was
convicted
by
jury
in
Baltimore City Circuit Court for the April 22, 1981 murder of
James Williams Wise and also for a related weapons charge. He
was sentenced to life in prison. The Maryland Court of Special
Appeals affirmed Griffins convictions on April 4, 1983, and the
Maryland
Court
of
Appeals
denied
Griffins
petition
for
Baltimore
City
Circuit
Court
denied
this
petition
on
On
October
31,
1997,
over
fifteen
years
after
his
petition
seeking
post-conviction
DNA
testing
of
certain
that
Baltimore
withheld
from
the
City
defense
Police
Department
exculpatory
evidence,
detectives
including
August
an
4,
2011,
evidentiary
the
Baltimore
hearing
to
City
Circuit
consider
Court
Griffins
On February 2, 2012, Griffin again moved for state postconviction relief. Then, on May 23, 2012, the Baltimore City
Circuit Court granted Griffins unopposed motion to modify his
sentence to time served. Griffin was placed on three years of
unsupervised probation, but the probation was terminated early
on December 19, 2012.
Griffin,
no
longer
in
custody,
sued
the
Baltimore
City
seek
federal
review
prior
to
his
release
from
shall
briefly
underlying
Heck
claim.
Heck,
In
problems
lying
schemes
relevant
1983.
The
review
before
the
at
first
the
proceeding
Supreme
the
to
at
to
Court
problem
the
of
to
core
the
litigation:
goes
the
principles
of
Griffins
two
potential
major
statutory
identified
intersection
prisoner
outset
habeas
consistency.
corpus
If
and
1983
conviction,
there
would
be
two
conflicting
second
Congresss
problem
specified
goes
means
of
to
the
federal
proper
observance
post-conviction
of
review.
state
prisoners
seeking
actual
release
from
confinement.
exhaust
their
claims
in
state
forums
and
by
limiting
then
that
plaintiff
could
circumvent
these
prohibiting
1983
claims
implicating
issues
more
appropriately resolved via federal habeas corpus or state postconviction relief. Specifically, the Court held that
to recover damages for . . . 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 reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid
by
a
state
tribunal
authorized
to
make
such
determination, or called into question by a federal
courts issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.
2254.
in
inconsistent
convictions
through
judgments
pathways
or
other
retrials
than
of
those
old
state
delineated
by
Congress.
Heck itself makes clear, however, that 1983 actions that
do not necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior conviction
should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar
to the suit. Heck, 512 at 487. The need to avoid inconsistent
judgments
and
requirements
prevent
of
litigants
federal
habeas
from
corpus
evading
the
is
present
not
procedural
when
562
U.S.
521,
534
(2011).
It
might
instead
only
itself
which
inconclusive
postconviction,
makes
this
may
yield
results,
necessarily
distinction
clear.
exculpatory,
Brady
yields
Unlike
incriminating,
claim,
evidence
when
DNA
or
successful
undermining
the
defendant
and
material
to
his
guilt
or
punishment.
Skinner, 562 U.S. at 536; see also Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (We
now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence
favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where
the evidence is material.). The Courts careful explanation of
this
distinction
prevents
us
from
allowing
its
decision
in
Brady
the
violations
invalidity
of
which
would,
Griffins
if
proven,
necessarily
convictions.
And
those
The
Heck
bar
is
not
rendered
inapplicable
by
the
unable
to
challenge
their
conviction
through
habeas
resolution
of
necessarily
undermine
the
convictions.
Griffins
claims
Griffins
validity
would
1983
of
appear
claims
would
Griffins
therefore
prior
to
fall
though
his
claims
would
necessarily
undermine
his
qualifies
successfully
for
this
pursue
exception
habeas
relief
because
while
he
could
deprived
of
not
the
case
Justice
Souter
filed
only
by
presented
in
Heck:
potential
because
individuals
who
problem
federal
are
in
habeas
identified
suits
custody,
28
may
by
be
U.S.C.
2254(a),
petitioners
with
short
sentences
might
find
their
backstop,
these
petitioners
might
lack
access
to
federal
decide
after
discovery
whether
Covey
was
unable
to
Id.
In
discussing
Wilsons
holding,
moreover,
we
suggested that the Heck exception does not extend to just any
petitioner who, by virtue of no longer being in custody, cannot
seek
habeas
relief.
Rather,
the
exception
applies
only
if
petitioner
could
not
have
practicably
sought
habeas
relief
1983
claim
undermining
the
validity
of
prior
did
not
lack
access
to
habeas
relief
while
in
three
habeas
petition
decades.
petition
was
And
Griffin
during
denied,
the
his
actually
time
fact
in
that
he
did
bring
custody.
was
able
federal
Although
to
file
his
it
10
remained
in
the
hands
of
the
Baltimore
Police
Department.
records
(much
less
encountered
resistance
to
their
2014).
Lack
of
information
did
not
take
away
Griffins
our
Griffins
habeas
case
precedent
corpus
is
makes
is
further
clear
the
that
lawful
touchstone
undercut
by
of
the
access
our
fact
to
inquiry,
that
he
did
to
except
Humphrey,
Skinner,
Brady
562
claims
U.S.
at
from
the
536-37,
rule
the
in
Heck
Supreme
v.
Court
the
Baltimore
City
Circuit
Court.
His
custody
did
not
11
time
of
filing,
not
throughout
the
case.
Carafas
v.
LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238-39 (1968); Wolfe v. Clarke, 718 F.3d
277, 286 n.10 (4th Cir. 2013). Griffin would have had only to
file his petition during those sixteen months. He did not do so.
In
sum,
Griffin
has
identified
no
impediment
to
habeas
still-valid
conviction
for
plaintiff
who
not
only
could but did file a federal habeas petition would permit the
Heck exception to swallow the rule.
IV.
It is important not to disassociate Griffins case from the
broader context of which it is part. The usual federal remedy
for
Griffin,
confinement,
as
for
all
is
habeas
those
who
corpus.
challenge
Congress
has
unlawful
state
simultaneously
major
Effective
habeas
Death
principles
of
statute
--
Penalty
Act
comity,
finality,
the
(AEDPA)
1996
--
and
was
Antiterrorism
written
federalism
and
with
in
the
mind.
12
system
of
government,
between
the
judicial
tribunals
of
the
Union and of the States, and that the public good requires
that those relations be not disturbed by unnecessary conflict
between courts equally bound to guard and protect rights secured
by the constitution. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 251 (1886).
Indeed, the trial of a criminal case in state court has always
been understood as a decisive and portentous event, Wainwright
v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977), and one which commands a
decent measure of federal respect. Griffins conviction, after
all, is a state conviction, and it is one in which Maryland, the
rendering jurisdiction, retains an interest.
Limits on federal habeas corpus recognize, moreover, that
the states often already provide many avenues of post-conviction
relief. Maryland, for example, allows certain offenders who are
no longer in custody to challenge their convictions by means of
an independent, civil action known as a petition for writ of
error coram nobis. Smith v. State, 100 A.3d 1204, 1206 (Md.
App. 2014) (citing Skok v. State, 760 A.2d 647 (Md. 2000)).
Maryland also permits convicted persons to file petitions for
writs
of
actual
innocence
evidence.
Md.
Code,
Maryland
Constitution
Crim.
on
the
Proc.
empowers
13
basis
the
of
8-301.
newly
discovered
Additionally,
governor
to
issue
the
an
executive pardon. Md. Const. art. II, 20, cl. 1. 2 And the
Maryland
Board
of
Public
Works
may
grant
compensation
to
pardoned persons. Md. Code, State Fin. & Proc. 10-501. Each of
these
forms
of
relief
is
in
addition
to
Marylands
standard
prevents
Maryland
from
creating
new
means
of
not
infringe
on
federal
constitutional
guarantees.
the
Supreme
Court
recently
observed,
federal
habeas
be
amenable
to
quick
look-see.
Whether
alleged
Brady
14
the
may
total
thus
proceedings,
context
involve
process
of
an
the
state
exhaustive
which
in
turn
prosecution.
exhumation
implicates
of
the
Brady
state
Supreme
counsels
against
accepting
Griffins
invitation
to
turn
one
under
Supreme
15
Court
and
circuit
precedent.
AFFIRMED
16
consistent
with
Heck,
at
least
unless
and
until
his
federal
habeas
relief
then
has
not
precisely
delineated
or
during
the
additional
scope
of
the
Our
Heck
this, where the petitioners full term of custody was more than
long enough to allow for access to habeas relief, see Maj. Op.
at 10, then I agree that the exception can apply only if the
petitioner
could
not
have
practicably
sought
habeas
relief
Citations
opinion.
to
Maj.
Op.
17
refer
to
the
majority
slip
F.3d at 197).
have
sought
habeas
relief
before
he
actually
discovered
the
alleged Brady material, cf. Heck, 512 U.S. at 502 (Souter, J.,
concurring)
(suggesting
that
Heck
bar
does
not
apply
to
why
he
could
not
have
pursued
habeas
relief
after
that
See Maj.
Op. at 12.
Finally,
important point:
echo
the
majoritys
clarification
of
an
Griffins Brady claim and does not bar Griffin from seeking a
remedy for any Brady violation he has suffered.
Id. at 15-16.
trial
unless
the
government
agreed
to
indeed
Maryland
provide
meritorious,
that
has
remedy,
the
or
then
under
authority
to
Heck,
and
invalidate
his
release
from
If Griffins claim
it
also
is
the
Griffins
the
State
of
obligation
to
conviction
and
18