NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 2453

_____________ M IC H A E L G A R R IS O N , A ppel l ant

v. W IL L IA M P O R C H , P o lice O f f ice r; C IT Y O F N O R T H W IL D W O O D ; N O R T H W IL D W O O D P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; D E N IS E W A T S O N ; JO H N M C B R ID E ; R O B E R T C A R U S O ; R O B E R T M A T T E U C C I; P A U L S K IL L ; T E D H IN D E S , P o li ce O ff icers

______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C i vi l N o. 1- 04- C V - 01114) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. N oel L . H i l l m an A r gued N ovember19, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y , and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2010) P a u l R . D ’A m a to , E s q . D ’A m ato L aw F irm 401 N ew R oad Sui t e 103 L i nw ood, N J 082212

D onal d P. J acobs , E s q. ( ar gued) B udd L arner 150 J ohn F. K ennedyParkw ay 3r d Fl oor Shor tH i l l s , N J 07078- 0999 C ouns el forA ppel l ant J os eph M . Scot t , E s q. ( ar gued) B arker , Scot t , & G el fand 210 N ew R oad L i nw ood G r eene , Sui t e 12 L i nw ood, N J 08221- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. M i chae l G arr i s on appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s entryof s um m aryj udgm entas t o hi s cl ai m s agai ns tW i l l i am P or ch. Forthe r eas ons s etforth bel ow , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly su m m arize th e e ssen ti al fa cts. S ince the p roc ed u ral po sture is a g ran t of su m m ary j udgm ent , w e cons true al l fac t s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o G arr i s on as the non- m ovi ng p a rt y . O n the ni ghtof M ar ch 29, 2002, aft ercons um i ng s ever al al cohol i c beve r ages and s m oki ng m ar i

j uana a ta fr i end’ s hom e i n N orth W i l dw ood, N ew J er s ey , G arr i s on and3

sev era l of

h is fri en d s too k a c ab to a n ea rbyb ar. A t th e b ar, G arrison h ad sev era l m o re al cohol i c dr i nks and cons um ed a t abl etof the i l l egal drug ecs t as y . T hr oughoutthe r es tof th e e v e n i n g , Ga rr i s o n a n d h i s f r i e n d s v i s i t e d mu l t i p l e l o c a l b a r s a n d c o n t i n u e d t o c o n s u me a lc o h o lic b e v e ra g e s . A tappr oxi m at el y2: 00 a. m . , G arr i s on exi t ed one s uch bar , w al ked i nt o an adj oi ni ng al l ey , and bega n t o ur i nat e aga i ns ta w al l . Por ch, a pl ai ncl othes pol i ce of fi cer patr ol l i ng the ar ea, not i ced thi s and appr oache d G arr i s on, i nt endi ng t o arr es thi m for p u b lic u ri n a tio n . W hen Por ch att empt ed t o handcuf f G arr i s on, G arr i s on s pun ar ound, and r ai s ed up hi s hands i n an aggr es s i ve manneras i f t o s tr i ke Por ch. I n r es pons e, Por ch gr abbed G arrison b yh is arm , fo rce d h im to the g rou n d , an d jum p ed o n G arrison ’s ba ck , w h ere P o rc h w a s a b le to p la c e h is h a n d c u f f s o n G a rr is o n . A tthi s poi nt , G arr i s on began t o compl ai n of nec k pai n. Por ch ca l l ed form edi cal att ent i on, and G arr i s on w as t aken t o a nea rbyhos pi t al . I tw as ul t i m at el ydet erm i ned that he had acervi cal s pi ne fr actur e, w hi ch r equi r ed nea r l ya mont h of i npat i entcar e and ove r f o u r m o n th s o f

o u tp a tie n t r e h a b ilita tio n th e ra p y . G a rriso n w a s c h a rg e d w ith a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt o n a p o lice o f f ice r, re sis tin g a rre st, d iso rd e rlyc o n d u c t, an d p u b lic u rin a tio n . H e p led g u iltyto a n a m e n d e d c h a rg e o f sim p leN ew Jer sey ’s si m ple as saul tst atute cr i m i nali zes i ntent i on al at t em pts t o cau se 1 bodi l yi nj ury , negl i gentbodi l yi nj uryw i th a dea dl yw eapon, or“[a ] t t empt s byphy s i cal m e n a c e to p u t a n o th e r i n f e a r o f im m in e n t s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry.” N .J . S ta t. A n n . § 2C : 12- 1a. Si nce no de adl yw eapon w as us ed i n the i nci dent , w e mustconcl ude that G a rriso n w a s c o n v icte d o f e ith e r a ttem p tin g o r th re a ten in g to c a u se b o d ilyd a m a g e to Por ch. T her e w er e no s peci fi c fa ct s of the cr i m e i n the i ndi ctm entoradmi t t ed by G a rr is o n a t th e g u ilty p le a , a n d G a rr is o n d e n ie s a c tu a lly str ik in g P o rc h . O n appea l , G arr i s on does notcont es tthe entryof j udgm enton hi s s t at e l aw 2 cl ai m s , and w e ther efor e onl ycons i derw hetherthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s entryof j udgm enton 4 assa u lt an d to p u rpo sef u ll yresist ing arrest, an d the re m aind er o f th e c h arg es w ere 1 d ro p p e d . O n M ar ch 3, 2004, G arr i s on br oughts ui ti n the D i s tr i ctC ourtnami ng as d e f e n d a n ts P o rc h , a n u m b e r o f o th e r N o rth W ild w o o d p o lice o f f ice rs, th e N o rth W i l dw ood Pol i ce D epartm entand the ci tyof N orth W i l dw ood. H e s oughtdamages under 42 U . S. C . § 1983 forvi ol at i on of hi s Four th A m endmentr i ght s and undera numberof stat e law ca u ses o f a cti o n . D ef en d an ts fil ed m o ti o n s to d ism iss G arrison ’s claim s. In s epar at e or der s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed mostof G arr i s on’ s cl ai m s , and on N ovember 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , Ga rr i s o n a g r e e d t o a s t i p u l a t i o n o f d i s mi s s a l wi th p r e

j u d i c e a s t o h i s c l a i ms a g a in st a ll d e f

e n d a n ts e x c e p t P o rc h , an d th e C ityo n lyin so f a r a s it m a yb e v ica rio u sly lia b le f o r P o rc h ’s a c tio n s . Por ch fi l ed a c ount er cl ai m agai ns tG arr i s on, s eeki ng damages foras s aul tand b a ttery an d se v e ra l o th e r sta te la w c laim s. P o rc h m o v e d f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t as to b o th G a rr is o n ’s s ta te a n d f

e d e ra l c la im s a g a in s t h im , a n d h is c o u n te rc la im a g a in s t G a rr is o n . O n M ar ch 9, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed Por ch’ s m ot i on as t o G arr i s on’ s cl ai m s , but 2G a rr is o n ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im w a s in e rr o r. 5

d e n ie d th e m o tio n a s to P o rc h ’s c o u n te rc la im . G arr i s on fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l fr om the M ar ch 9 or der , buti tw as vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed as an i nt er l ocut oryappea l underR ul e 42( b) of the Feder al R ul es of A pp el l at e P rocedu re because P orch’s cou nter cl ai m had no tbeen res olved. A ft er the case w a s re o p e n e d , G a rr is o n f ile d a M o tio n to R e c o n s id e r, w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd e n ie d . T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n e n ter e d a c o n se n t o rd e r w h ich p ro v id e d th a t P o rc h ’s c o u n ter c laim b e d ism iss e d w ith o u t p re ju d ice . T h e c o n se n t o rd e r sta ted th a t ita llo w e d G a rriso n to appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entryof s um m aryj udgm entas t o hi s exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m , but th a t if h e w o n th e a p p e a l an d th e c a se w a s re m a n d e d to th e D istric t C o u rt, P o rc h c o u ld th e n re in s ta te h is c o u n te rc la im . A ft erthe cons entor derw as ent er ed, G arr i s on agai n fi l ed a not i ce of appea l . T he C l erk of thi s C ourti nform ed the part i es thatthe cons entor derm ays t i l l notbe a f i nal a p p e a lab le o rd e r u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 b e c a u se P o rc h re tain e d th e a b ili tyto re in sta te h is c o u n ter c laim . S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , P o rc h c o n se n ted to th e d ism iss a l o f h is c o u n ter c laim w ith p re ju d ic e , a n d a s tip u la tio n to th a t e f f e c t w a s f ile d in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 4 3 (a ). T he part i es w er e di r ect ed t o br i ef the i s s ue of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. B oth part i es di d s o, and theyagr ee thatthi s C ourthas appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s m att er . T he i s s ue6

i s w hetheror not the co nsent or der, i n co njunct i on w i th the st i pu l at i on agreem ent, i s a f in a l ju d g m e n t u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T hi s C our thas pr evi ous l yhel d thatw e do notgener al l yhave appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on w h e n th e re is s til l a c h a n c e , co n tin g e n t u p o n th e o u tco m e o f th e a p p e a l, th a t a c laim di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce c oul d be r ei ns t at ed. Fed. H om e Loan M ort gage Corp. v. Scot t s dal e I ns . C o. , 316 F. 3d 431, 438 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he cons entor derdi s m i s s ed Por ch’ s count er cl ai m w i thoutpr ej udi ce, w hi ch meantthatthe count er cl ai m coul d be r es urr ect ed i f G arr i s on w on on appea l . T he cons entor derw as ther efor e noti t s el f a f i nal ju d g m e n t u n d e r § 1 2 9 1 . H o w ev er, th e sti p u lat ion ag ree m en t pro v ided that the d ism issal of P o rch ’s count er cl ai m w as w i th pr ej udi ce, m aki ng the di s m i s s al a fi nal j udgm ent . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d thata partyw hos e cl ai m s had bee n di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce may expl i ci t l yagr ee thatcl ai m s be di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. W hen the partydoes s o, the c laim s m a yn o t b e re in sta ted , the ju d g m e n t is f in a l w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 1 2 9 1 , an d th is C o u rt p ro p e rlyh a s a p p e llate ju risd ictio n . S e e id . (h o ld in g th a t th e e x e rc ise o f a p p e llate j u r i s d i c t i o n wa s p r o p e ru n d e r§ 1 2 9 1 wh e r e o r i g i n a l o r d e rd i s mi s s e d c e r t a i n c l a i ms w i thoutpr ej udi ce, butthe partybr i ngi ng thos e cl ai m s agr eed thatthe cl ai m s ati s s ue s houl d be di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce ator alar gum ent and obt ai ned an or derfr om the d istri ct co u rt s hor t l yther eaf t ert o thateff

ect ) . T hi s expl i ci tagr eementdoes not nece s s ar i l yhave t o be a c our tor derdi s m i s s i ng the cl ai m orcl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce i n or der7

t o be val i d. See T i ernan v. D evoe, 923 F. 2d 1024, 1031 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng that appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on w as appr opr i at e w her e i ni t i al di s m i s s al w as w i thoutpr ej udi ce, but “pl ai nt i ffs r enounce d, thr ough l ett erbr i efs , anyi nt ent i on t o t ake f urtheract i on agai ns tthe . . . D e f e n d a n ts .” ). W e th e re f

o re h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to § 1 2 9 1 . W e a p p lya p lena rystan d ard o f re v iew to a d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm ent . See L igh tning L u b e, Inc . v . W it co C o rp., 4 F . 3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). III . G a rriso n a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n h is exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m agai ns tPor ch under§ 1983. W e agr ee. T h e D istri ct C o u rtb ase d it s en tryo f su m m aryjud g m en t on the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n H eck v. H um phr ey , i n w hi ch the C ourthel d thata pl ai nt i ff maynotr ecove r damages under§ 1983 i f doi ng s o w oul d i m pl ythe i nval i di tyof a pr i orconvi ct i on. 512 U . S. 477, 487 ( 1994) ; s ee a l s o G i l l es v. D avi s , 427 F. 3d 197, 208- 09 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “U nderH eck, a § 1983 ac t i on thati m pugns the val i di tyof the pl ai nt i ff’ s under l y i ng c o n v ictio n c a n n o t b e m a in tain e d u n les s th e c o n v ictio n h a s b e e n re v e rse d o n d ire c t ap p e a l, ori m pai r ed bycol l at er al pr ocee di ngs . ”) . A cl ai m fordamages under§ 1983 w i l l onl ybe barr ed underH eck w hen the cl ai m , i f s ucce s s ful , nece s s ar i l yi nval i dat es the pr i or c o n v ictio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t G a rriso n c o u ld n o t p o ss ib lysu c c e e d o n h is e x c e s s iv e f

o rc e c la im w ith o u t im p lyin g th e in v a lid ity o f h is c o n v ic tio n f

o r s im p le a s s a u lt. T he Four th A m endmentr equi r es pol i ce of fi cer s t o us e onl ythe degr ee of for ce that8

i s r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o pl ace a s us pectunderarr es t . See Tennes s ee v. G arner , 471 U . S. 1, 9- 10 ( 1985) . I f the for ce us ed i n eff ect i ng an arr es ti s bey ond w hatw as re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ry , the a rre ste e m a yse e k m o n e tar yd a m a g e s f o r th e in f rin g e m e n t o f

h is o r h e r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r o r n o t th e f o rc e u se d in e f f e c tin g a n a rre st w a s u n re a so n a b lye x c e ss iv e , a f in d e r o f f a c t is to c o n sid e r th e to tality of the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the arr es t . Sharr arv. Fel s i ng, 128 F. 3d 810, 822 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T hi s C our thas pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned thata convi ct i on forr es i s t i ng arr es tdoes not nece s s ar i l ypr ecl ude an a rr es t ee f orr ecove r i ng damages on a § 1983 exc es s i ve for ce c l a i m. Ne l s o n v . J a s h u r e k , 1 0 9 F . 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 - 4 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n d o i n g s o , we re v e rse d th e d istric t co u rt, w h ich h a d in f o rm e d th e ju ryth a t th e a rre ste e c o u ld o n ly r ecove rdamages on hi s cl ai m i f he s how ed thathi s act i ons di d notj us t i fythe us e of

“ su b sta n tial f

o rc e ” b yth e p o lice o f

f ice r. H o w e v e r, w e o b se rv e d th a t “th e re u n d o u b ted ly coul d be ‘ s ubs t ant i al for ce’ w hi ch i s obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e and ‘ s ubs t ant i al for ce’ w hi ch is ex ce ssive an d u n rea so n ab le. ” Id . at 14 5 . W e u lt im atelyh eld th at a rea so n ab le j u ror, c o n sid e rin g th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, c o u ld f in d th a t th e a rre ste e re sis ted a rre st, b u t w a s s til l su b

jec ted to a n u n re a so n a b lye x c e ss iv e lev e l o f f o rc e b yth e p o lice o f

f ice r in re s p o n s e . Id . a t 1 4 6 . Por ch her e ar gues thatbeca us e G arr i s on pl ed gui l tyt o as s aul t i ng the arr es t i ng offi cer , the for ce Por ch us ed i n t aki ng G arr i s on i nt o cus t odycoul d nothave be en9

exce s s i ve. H ow ever , the fa ctthatG arr i s on’ s thr eat ened oratt empt ed us e of f or ce w as unl aw ful does notaut om at i cal l ym ean thatther e i s no us e of f or ce thatPor ch coul d have u s e d in re s p o n s e w h ic h c o u ld h a v e ri s e n to th e le v e l o f u n re a s o n a b le a n d e x c e s s iv e . Por ch w as s t i l l cons tr ai ned t o us e onl ythe l evel of for ce w hi ch w as r eas onabl e t o br i ng G arr i s on i nt o cus t ody . W hi l e the fa ctthatG arr i s on w as act i ng i n an unrul yand thr eat eni ng m annercert ai nl yfac t or s i nt o the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s and mayhave j us t i fi ed a gr eat erus e of f or ce than w oul d have be en r eas onabl e had G arr i s on been peace ful and co op erat i ve, i tcert ai nlydid not di spense w i th the r easona bleness re q u ir e m e n t a lto g e th e r. W h ile th is C o u rt h a s n o t sq u a re lya d d re ss e d th e iss u e o f w h e th e r a sim p le a ss a u lt convi ct i on nece s s ar i l ys erves as a bart o a § 1983 exc es s i ve for ce c l ai m underH eck, other court s of appe al s t o have c ons i der ed fa ctual l ys i m i l arcas es have ge ner al l yhel d thatthe m er e fa ctof a c onvi ct i on foras s aul tors i m i l arconvi ct i on ar i s i ng outof the s ame i nci dent d o es n o t auto m ati ca ll yp rec lud e re co v eryo n an ex ce ssive fo rce claim b rou g h t un d er § 1983. See, e. g. , D y erv. L ee, 488 F. 3d 876, 883 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ; M cC ann v. N i el s en, 4 6 6 F . 3 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 0 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); T h o re v . H o w e, 46 6 F . 3 d 1 7 3 , 1 8 0 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); B al l ar d v. B ur t on, 444 F. 3d 391, 400- 01 ( 5th C i r . 2006) ; Sm i thartv. T ow ery , 79 F. 3d 951, 952 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( percur i am). B uts ee Cum m i ngs v. C i tyof A kr on, 418 F. 3d 676, 682- 83 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thatH eck ba rr ed pl ai nt i ff’ s § 1983 exce s s i ve for ce c l a i m wh e r e p l a i n t i f

f h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f

a s s a u l t i n g th e p o l i c e o f f i c e ri n th e s a me10

i nci dent ) . W e agr ee w i th the maj or i tyof othercourt s of appe al s t o have f ace d thi s i s s ue in re jec tin g P o rc h ’s a rg u m e n t th a t G a rriso n ’s c o n v ictio n f o r sim p le a ss a u lt au to m a tica lly p re c lu d e s h im f

ro m re c o v e ri n g o n h is § 1 9 8 3 c la im . P orch al so argues that because G arr i son co uld have , bu tdid not, used sel f-defense as an affirm at i ve d efen se t o the charge of si m ple as saul t , his con vict i on est abli shes as a m att erof l aw thathi s conductw as notj us t i fi ed, and he i s ther efor e barr ed byH eck f r om r ecove r i ng on hi s exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m . H ow ever , due t o the natur e of G arr i s on’ s fac tual c la im s a s a lle g e d in h is c o m p la in t a n d p le a d in g s , th e is s u e o f s e lf -d e f e n s e is irre le v a n t. G a rr is o n h a s n o t c la im e d th a t h is a c t o f s im p le a s s a u lt w a s c o m m itte d to p ro te c t h im s e lf. H e a c k n o w le d g e s th a t h e a s s a u lte d P o rc h b e f o re P o rc h a lle g e d ly u s e d e x c e s s iv e f o rc e . H e cl ai m s thataft erhi s actof as s aul t , Por ch then r es ponded byus i ng a degr ee of for ce thatw as m uch gr eat erthan w as r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o s ubdue hi m and pl ace hi m under arr es t . T hi s i s cl ear l ya cl ai m of exc es s i ve for ce i n r es pons e t o an as s aul t , and the theor et i cal avai l abi l i tyof a s el f- defe ns e cl ai m i n others i m pl e as s aul tcas es i s of no r el evanc e t o the pr es entcas e. G arrison ad m it s tha t up o n init ial lyb eing co n fro n ted b yP o rch , h e a cted in a v ery a g g re ss iv e a n d th re a ten in g m a n n e r, w h ich c o n stitu ted sim p le a ss a u lt. A t th a t p o in t, G arr i s on al l eges thatPor ch r es ponded byus i ng an exc es s i ve l evel of for ce byfl i ngi ng hi m t o the gr ound and j um pi ng on t op of hi m , fr actur i ng hi s vert ebr ae. T her e i s no l ogi cal i ncons i s t encyi n thes e tw o as s ert i ons . A r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd that , evenT h e C o u rt e m p h a siz e s th a t o u r h o ld in g is in n o w a ya n a ss e ss m e n t o f th e m e rits 3 o f G a rriso n ’s c laim . W e a re re v e rsin g th e D istric t C o u rt so lelyb e c a u se G a rriso n ’s c laim fo r reli ef is no t nec essa ri lyinco n sist en t w ith the f ac t of h is si m p le assa u ltco n v ict ion . In th is re sp e c t th e c a se b e f o re u s is sim ilar to N e lso n , in w h ich th is C o u rt w ro te th a t “w h ile w e d o n o t d o u b t th a t ev e n o n th e f a c ts a s p re se n ted b yN e lso n it w ill b e d if f icu lt fo r h im t o es t abl i s h l i abi l i tyi n thi s cas e, w e do nots ee w hya j udgm enti n hi s favorw oul d thr ow th e v a lid ity o f

h is c o n v ic tio n in to d o u b t.” 1 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 4 6 . 11 cons i der i ng G arr i s on’ s i ni t i al behavi orw hi ch cons t i tut ed a s i m pl e as s aul t , Por ch us ed an unr eas onabl e amountof for ce i n arr es t i ng hi m , and i n doi ng s o vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts. G arrison ’s § 1 9 8 3 claim is th ere fo re n o t barred b yH ec k , an d the D istri ct C o u rt e rre d b yg ra n tin g P o rc h ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 3 I V. Forthes e r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC ourtand r emand the case fo r further proceedings.