NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0215n.06
Case No. 16-5743
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOEL D. NASELROAD, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. DENNIS MABRY, ET AL Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

OPINION

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. The Appellant is Joel D. Naselroad (“Naselroad”) who asserts that several police officers in Clark County unlawfully entered the curtilage of his home during a “knock and talk” operation and used excessive force when they shot him in the chest. Subsequently, Naselr oad was charged and found guilty of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia . Based on the events during the “knock and talk” operation, Naselroad filed a § 1983 lawsuit ag ainst four law-enforcement offi cers, in both their individual and official capacities, and also asserted clai ms against their law-enforcement-entity and/or elected-official employers (collectively, the “Defendants”). Defendants moved for summary judgment, and finding no genuine issue of material fact, the district cour t granted the motion. Naselroad appealed. Because the record before th is court is unclear as to whether the instantNo. 16-5743, Naselroad v. Mabry, et al.

- 2 - lawsuit relates to Naselroad’s subseque nt arrest, thus potentially creating a Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) issue, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND the case.
I. On October 8, 2013, Detective Mark Craycraft (“Craycraft”), a detective with the Clark County Sheriff’s Department, received a tip fro m Naselroad’s neighbor that there was a marijuana grow on his property. Craycraft c ontacted Paris Police Of ficer Robert Puckett (“Puckett”) and Trooper Dennis Mabry (“Mabry” ) and asked them to accompany him to the Naselroad residence to conduct a “ knock and talk” procedure in an effort to obtain consent to search the premises. Craycraft also contacted Captain Howard and asked that Captain Howard send a uniformed deputy in a marked cruiser to th e Wal-Mart to meet with Craycraft, Puckett, and Mabry. Per this request, Deputy Sheriff John Justin Gurl ey (“Gurley”) met Craycraft, Puckett, and Mabry at the Wal- Mart in Winchester, Kentucky. After meeting in the Wal-Mart parking lot, the four officers went to Naselroad’s residence. Of the four, only Gurley was in un iform. Once they arrived, Craycraft and Gurley approached a double glass door that was adjacent to the driveway of the residence. Craycraft and Gurley knocked on the door, which was answer ed by Jeannie Naselroad, Plaintiff’s mother, and identified themselves as law enforcement of ficers. Craycraft introduced himself and Gurley to Jeannie Naselroad and explai ned that they were there to investigate the possibility of marijuana being grown somewhere behind the hous e. Jeannie Naselroad responded that she did not think anybody would be growin g marijuana on her property. At some point, Naselroad walked outside hi s home through the rear entrance. Naselroad contends that when he left hi s home, he did not see anyone driv e up to his home or hear a knockNo. 16-5743, Naselroad v. Mabry, et al.

- 3 - on the door, did not see his mother speaking to a ny police officers at the front door, and did not walk behind her when she was opening the door. Craycraft testified that upon se eing Naselroad exit the home , he ran to the backyard where Naselroad was standing. Na selroad states that when he saw Craycraft with his weapon drawn, he pulled his .25 semi-automatic handgun and aimed the gun in Craycraft’s direction. Hearing Craycraft yelling “gun,” Mabry ran to the backyard where Naselroad heard Mabry identify himself as a police o fficer and order Naselroad to dr op his weapon. Naselroad alleges that at this point he began to lower his weapon but Mabry shot him once with a handgun, the bullet striking him in the chest and exiting his bac k. Naselroad suffered spinal and nerve damage and incurred over $325,000 in medical bills. Naselroad was later convicted of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The instant § 1983 lawsuit followed.
II. The court notes that, while ne ither party raised the issue, Naselroad’s § 1983 lawsuit might be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that: [T]o recover damages for [an] alle gedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or senten ce invalid, a § 1983 plain tiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been revers ed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal aut horized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court' s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnote omitted). If the doc trine applies here, to the extent that Naselroad is seeking monetary damages that wo uld invalidate the underlying conviction, his suit is barred. If, as the Defendants now c ontend, Naselroad’s § 1983 claim “is premised on the alleged illegality of a search of his pr operty that yielded marijuana a nd drug paraphernalia,” and thatNo. 16-5743, Naselroad v. Mabry, et al.

- 4 - very marijuana and drug paraphern alia is the evidence that led to Naselroad’s conviction, then challenging that search would undermine the legitim acy of his conviction. Alternatively, if, as Naselroad contends, the arrest was based on a subsequent warra nt, then the § 1983 claim is allowed. It is unclear from the record before this court whether Naselroad’s arrest and conviction was based on the alle ged warrantless entry at issu e in his § 1983 claim or a subsequent warrant. The Heck doctrine has not been analyzed and the factual record before this court is incomplete. A remand is therefore n ecessary for further factual developments and review as to Heck’s applicability.
III. For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND the case for further proceedings.