NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 10 a0169n .06 No . 08- 1858 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT JEFFREY KARTT UNEN, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t, v. DA VID C LAR K, Defendant -A ppel lee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY, SUTT ON, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. PERC UR IAM

. Pl ain ti ff Je ff re y Kar ttune n appea ls the distri ctc our t’ s g ra nt of sum ma ry

judgmen t to d efend antDav id Clark, a Mi chigan stat e troop er, on Ka rttun en’s cl aim that Cl ar k u sed uncon sti tuti onal ly ex ces si v e forc e w hil e tak ing the pl a intiff into cus tody for resi sti ng arrest . In reachi ng i ts deci si on, t he di str ict c our t di d notaddress the meri ts of Karttunen’ s e x ces si v e forc e c lai m. I nst ead, the c our t r ule d t h a t the pr inc ipl es announc ed i n Heck v

. Hum phr ey, 5 1 2 U.S . 4 7 7 (19 9 4 ), pre clu d e d t h e p la in ti f f ’s c h a lle n ge pursu antto 42 U.S. C. § 198 3, be cause a successf ul excessiv e-for c e j u d gmen t w ould neces sar il y

i mply the inv ali dity

of the u nder ly ing co nv icti on. Beca use w e c oncl ude that Heck is i nappl ic abl e to the fact s o f this ca se, as w e recent ly hel d i n Schr

eib er v. Moe , ___ F.3d ___ , No. 09-1 337 , 201 0 W L 72 402 1 (6th Cir. March 4, 2010 ), w e reverse the district court’s judgm entand rema nd th is matt er for f urthe r proceed ings.No. 08- 1 858

Karttu nen v. Clark

- 2 -

FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND T a kin g th e evid e n ce in th e ligh t m o stfa vora b le to th e pl a i n t i f f , t h e di st ric t ju d ge suc ci nct ly

stat e d the facts g er mane to thi s a ppeal i n an ini ti al order deny ing the defend ant ’s motio n for sum ma ry judgmen t, as follows: [C lar k] w as dis patc hed t o Pl ain ti ff ’s home on N o vem b e r 1 0, 20 04, t o inv est ig ate a hi t and r un acc ide nt. The dis patc her als o i nformed C lar k t hat t h e re wa s a wa rra n tfo r P la in t if f ’s a rre s tis s u e d f ro m S h ia wa s s e e Co u n ty. W hen C lar k a rr iv ed atPl ain ti ff ’s re sid ence, he k nock ed on the d oor , but recei v ed no re s p o n s e . C l a r kt h e n l o o k e d i n t o a w i n d o w a n d s a w

P l a i n t i ff sl eepi ng . Cl ar k knoc ked on the w ind ow and aw oke Pl ain ti ff , w ho c ame to the doo r. Cl ar k i nformed Pl ain ti ff thathe h ad a “mes sag e” fo r him and as ked him to st e p ou t o f

th e ho u se . P la in ti f

f as ke d Cla rk to gi ve h im th e m e ss a ge t h ro u gh th e do or , bu t C l ar k refu s ed

. C l ar k to l d Pl ai nt i ff th at he ne ed ed to co me outs ide to hear

the mess ag e, or Cl ar k w oul d impoun d his tr uck

. Ac cordin g to Plain tif

f , af ter he o pen ed th e do or, Clark pulled him o ut of the ho use b y

his ar m, put his other

arm behind his back and “ body sl ammed or

tac kl ed me t o the p orch head first and c ame dow n on top o f me w it h hi s k nee on mybac k.” Pl .’ s D ep. a t 31. Pl ain ti ff co ntends thathe h ithi s face on th e c oncrete p orch, susta ining a cut abo v e his eye as w ell as hea d, ba ck, and shou lder injuries. Cl ar k t hen g ot P lai nti ff

to his feet and put h im i n a p atrol car . The di str ict c our

t furt her note d tha t: Cl ar k p ro v ide s a sl ig htl y di fferent v ersi on of ev ents

. Ac cordin g to Cl ar k, he ask ed Pl ain ti ff

to ste p outonto the porch, but Pl a intiff refused. C lar k t hen grabb ed Pl a in tif

f ’s arm and ordered him to step ou t. Plaintif f tried to pu ll away from C l ar k , bu t C l ar ku s ed t he mo me nt um t o “ c on ti nu e on . A nd I c am e dow n on top o f him. Cl ar k D ep. At 59. Cl ar k refer re d to thi s as a “ cont ro ll ed ta k ed ow n. ” I d. A c c ordi ng t o C l ar k , Pl ai nt i ff hith i s h ea d on t he d oo r fram eNo. 08- 1 858

Karttu nen v. Clark

- 3 - on t he w ay

dow n. Aft er

Pl ai nt i ff w as o n th e g rou nd , C l ar kh an dc uffed h i m. C l ar kd i d no t te l l P l ai nt i ff he w as und er ar res t un ti l afte r

he ha nd c uffed h i m. Subs eq u e n t l y , P l a i n t i ff w a s c h a rg e d i n s t a t e c o u rtfo r re s i s t i n g a r re st. Ini ti all y , the charg e w as not bound ov er at the prelimi n a ry examinat ion , becau se Cl ar k d id not i nform Pl a intiff he w as bei ng ar re ste d unt il after the fact. Upo n appea l, how ev er , t he c harg e proceed ed and Pl ain ti ff pl eaded n o cont est

. The M ic hig an s tate cour t sentenc ed Karttunen to fiv e days i n j ail and 18 month s o n probati on for his co nv icti on for attempt e d resi sti ng of a pol ic e off ic er , a v iol ati on of M i c h i g a n C o mp i l e d L a ws § 7 5 0

. 8 1 d ( 1 )

. S h o rt l y a ft e r e n t r y of thatj u d g me n t , t h e p l a i n t i ff f iled this civ il l awsuit, allegi ng both a state -law claim of assau lt-and -batt eryand a claim pursu antto 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 for use of excessiv e force i n ef fectu ating the seiz ure of his pe rs on . The di s tr i ct c ou rt di s mi s s ed th e s ta te - l aw c l ai m sua sponte , declinin g to exercise suppl emental j ur is dicti on ov er thatal leg ati on. The defendant t hen fil ed a moti on for summary

judg ment, w hic h w as ini ti all y deni ed by the dis tr ict c our

t. In re achi ng thatpreli minar y dec is ion , t he di str ict j udg e det er mined that Karttu nen ’s noloconte nde rep l e a c o u l d no tha v e p re c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a tt h e p l a i n t i ff re si ste d a rrestbec ause, under M ic hig an l aw , a noloconte nde repl ea “ canno t be consid ered ‘actua l li t igatio n’ for the p urpo ses of collateral est opp el.” The district court noted that under

the pla int iff’s v ersi on of the facts, Kar ttune n “ did not re si st at al l, and thus no forc e w as necessa ry.” The cour t al so found that Cl ar k “ [di d] no t arg ue th at he [wa]s enti tl ed to q ual ified i mmunity ev en under [Kar ttune n’s ] v ersi on of the facts ” and, therefore,No. 08- 1 858

Karttu nen v. Clark

- 4 - conc lud ed th at a factual di sput e ex is ted b etw een t he par ti es, maki ng summar

y j udg ment ina ppropr iat e. The matter

w as, therefore, setfor t ri al, b u t on the day before the s tar

t of the p ro ce edi ng s, defendant C lar k fil ed a “s uppl emental br ief bas ed on He ck v . Hu m p hr ey ,” arg uin g thatthe Supreme C our t dec is ion i n Heck

ba rre d t h e pl a in ti f

f f ro m pro se cu ti n g a secti on 1983 cl aim “t hat, if su cc ess ful, ‘ wou ld nece ss ar il y i mply the inv ali dity ’ of a pr ior conv icti on or

se ntenc e.” The dis tr ict j udg e treated the “ suppl emental br ief” as a de lay ed mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t, foun d me rit in the defend ant ’s positio n, an d granted Clark summar y j udg ment. I n e ffect , t he di str ict c our t ado pted the d efendant’ s reason ing that und er Michig an law, a person m ay resist an un lawf ul arrest; tha t the plaintif f in th is ca se ple aded noloconte nde re to the c harg e tha t he improper ly resi ste d ar re st, meani ng thatthe ar re st it sel f mus t hav e been law ful; that if the a rrestw as law ful, ex ces si v e forc e mustnot have bee n use d in the seiz ure; an d tha t for Karttu nen to allege tha t the force use d in his ar re st w as ex ces si v e nec ess ar il y i mpli ed th at he w as improper ly co nv icted for

resi sti ng a r re s t
– a n u n a c c e p t a b l e c o l l a t e ra l a tt a c ko n a s t i l l - v a l i d c r i mi n a l c o n v i ct i o n . T h e p l a i n t i ff now appeal s from thatdete rmi nati on.DI SC US SION As noted abov e, t he di str ict c our t g ra nted summar

y j udg ment t o the defendant based upon it s fin din g thatKar ttunen ’s s ect ion 1983 cl aim w as bar re d by the pr inc ipl es announc ed i n Heck v

. Hum phr ey . In t hat o pin ion , t he Sup re me C our t hel d:No. 08- 1 858

Karttu nen v. Clark

- 5 - [I] n order to re cov er damag es for all eg edl y uncon sti tuti onal conv icti on or im prisonm ent , or for othe r harm cau sed b y action s w hose unlawfu lness wo u ld re n d e r a co n vic t io n o r s e n t e n c e i n va li d , a § 1 9 8 3 p la in t if f m u s tp ro ve tha t th e c on v i cti on or s en te nc e ha s be en rev ers ed on di rect app eal, ex pung ed by

ex ecut iv e order , dec lared i nv ali d by a sta te t ri bunal auth or iz ed to m ake su ch de term inatio n, or called into question b y a fede ral court’s is suanc e of a w ri t of

habeas c or pus, 28 U .S.C . § 2254. A c lai m for damag es bea ring tha t relation ship to a conviction or sente nce th at ha s not bee n so inv ali dated is not cog niz abl e under § 19 8 3

. T hus, w hen a sta te pr is oner seeks d am ages in a § 198 3 suit, th e district court m ust consid er wheth er a judgme nt in favor of th e plain tif f would nece ssarily

imply the inv alidity of

his conviction or sent ence ; if it w ould , the comp laint m ust be dismissed unless the p lai nti ff

ca n demon st ra te that the co nv icti on or se ntenc e has al re ady been i nv ali dated. But if the dis tr ict cour t det er mines thatthe pla int iff’s a cti on, even if successf ul, w ill not

demons trate t he i nv ali dity of a ny outs tandi ng cr imi nal j udg ment ag ain st the p lai nti ff , t he acti on sh oul d be all ow ed to proceed , i n the abs ence of some ot her bar to the s uit

. Heck , 512 U .S. at 486- 87 (footnot es omitted)

. W e hav e s tress ed th e s ame poi nt: “ Und er Heck , t he sali ent q uest ion is w hether the § 1983 cl aim ‘nec ess ar il y ’ impl ies the in v ali dity of the sta te-cou rt conviction.” Swiecicki v. D elg ado , 4 6 3 F .3d 489, 50 4 ( 6th C ir . 200 6) (S u tt o n , J ., co n cu rrin g in p a rtan d di ss e n ti n g in p a rt ) (ci ti n g Hi ll v. McD onough , 547 U .S. 573, 583 ( 2006) ), abr

ogated on ot

her gr ounds by W all ace v. Keto , 549 U.S. 384 (2007 ). In reach ing i ts conclu sion th at Ka rttun en’s civ il rig hts action did “necessarily ” imply th e in vali d it y of

th e st a te -co u rtco n vict io n , t h e di st ric t c o u rt , c it in g People v. Little , 456 N. W .2d 2 37 ( Mi ch. 1990) , c lai med both that “Pl ain ti ff could hav e used ex ces si v e force as a defense to t he c harg e of re si sti ng ar re st, ” and that “[ o]ne of the nec ess ar y el ements of a c onv icti on for re si sti ng ar re st is thata l awful ar re st occ ur re d.” Howev er , i n a c ase w it h many st ri ki ng factual si mil ar it ies to the fact s i n this c a se , w e hav e s inc e recog niz ed th atNo. 08- 1 858

Karttu nen v. Clark

- 6 - “[ t]he mere fact that the conv icti on and the § 1983 cl aim ar is e from t he s ame se t of facts is irrelev ant if

the two are consiste nt w ith on e an oth er.” Schr eib er , ___ F.3d at ___, 2010 W L 72402 1, at*8. In Schr eib er , t he pl ain ti ff

pl eaded n o contes t in Mi chi g an state cour t t o a c harg e of attempt ing to “a ss aul t, batte r, w ound, re si st, obs tr uct , opp ose, or endang er” a pol ic e off ic er under M .C .L. § 750. 81d( 1), th e s a me cod e s ect ion under w hic h Kar

ttune n w as charg ed and t o w hic h he als o pl eaded n o c ontes t. Schreib er ’s prosec uti on arose from an a lt e rc a t io n o n t h e b a s is o f wh ic h h e a ls o f il e d a se ct io n 1 9 8 3 a ct io n a ll e gi n g e xc e s s ive force. T he district court held tha t Schreib er’s claim was b a rr e d b y Heck v. Hum phr ey, beca use h e ha d be en co nvicted in state court fo r atte mp ting to resist arrest. On ap pea l, w e det e rm in e d t h at “ [n]ot hin g i n the text of M ic hig an C ompil ed Laws § 750. 81d( 1)

. . . suggests that th e stat e mu st prove as an elem entof the crime that the police d id notuse excessiv e force.” Id . at___, 2010 W L 72402 1, at*9. Obs er v ing that “o ne recentM ic hig an cas e has st ro ng ly

su g g est ed th at ex ce ss ive fo rc e by the pol ic e i s n ot a defense t o a re si sti ng -a rrestco nv icti on,” w e c oncl uded t hat “ any ex ces si v e forc e used by [the defendant pol ic e off ic er] woul d [no t] hav e prov ide d S ch reiber w it h an aff ir mati v e defense to t he charge of resisting an arrest.” Id . (c it in g People v. Ve ntu ra , 686 N.W .2d 748, 75 2 ( Mi ch. Ct . Ap p. 20 04) , and People v. Hill , N o. 28 3951, 2009 W L 18307 50, a t *3 (M ic h. C t. App. June 25, 2 009) ).No. 08- 1 858

Karttu nen v. Clark

- 7 - As a resul t, w e hel d tha t “ Schre iber’ s § 1983 ex ces si v e- force cl aim does not challen ge his convi ction for atte mp ting to resist his arrest” and tha t t h e c laim was, t h e re fo re , n o tb a rre d b y Heck , w hic h “ appl ies onl y w here a § 1983 cl aim w oul d ‘ nece ssarily ’ imp ly t h e inv alidity of

a conviction.” Schr

eib er , ___ F .3d a t ___ , 201 0 W L 72402 1, at*9 (qu o ti n g Nelson v. Campbell , 54 1 U. S. 63 7 , 6 4 7 (20 0 4 ). Citi n g Nel son , w e pointed out that a pl ain ti ff woul d otherw is e be unabl e to pursue a potenti all y v ali d c lai m for damag es, and d ir e ct e d t h a tS c h re ib e r b e a ll o we d t o p ro c e e d wit h h is se ct io n 1 9 8 3 a ct io n fo r e xc e s s ive force. See id

. CO NC LU SION Beca use thi s a ppeal i s cle a rly c ontroll ed by our dec is ion i n Schr

eib er , th e s am e result m ust follow here

. In i ts origi nal order den y ing sum ma ry judgmen t, the district court cor re ctl y r ule d that “a grant of immuni ty

. . . [w as] i nappropr iat e, g iv en th e factual di sput e betw een the par

ti es. ” W e therefore RE VER SE the dis tr ict cour t’ s jud g ment in the defend ant ’s fa v or and REMAND the case for f urthe r proceed ings consisten t w ith this opi nio n.