FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 5, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Norma

n H. Stahl, United States Circuit Judg e for the Fir st Circuit, sitting by * designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14680

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 2 3 7 - C V- F T M- 2 9 - DN F R U T H D Y E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S H A N N O N L E E , J O H N J . T R U I T T , T H O M A S F . H U M A N N , I I I , R Y A N E . T U T T , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2007) B efo re B A R K E T T , K R A V IT C H an d S T A H L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *2

S T A H L , C ir c u it J u d g e : In thi s c as e w e a re as ked w hether H ec k v . H um ph re y, 51 2 U . S . 48 5 (19 94 ), ba r s a pl a i nt i f

f ' s s ui tunde r42 U . S . C . § 1983 f orthe us e of

e xc e s s i ve f

or c e dur i ng her a rr es t . W e c on cl ud e thata s ucce ss ful § 1 98 3 sui tw ou l d n otcont ra di cther un derl yi ng conv i ct i on , and t hu s hersui ti s notH ec k-barr ed. T here fore , w e r ever se . I . B AC KG RO UN D B e c a u s e th e c a s e w a s d is p o s e d o f o n s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, w e r e c ite th e f a c ts i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f , the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . S e e B i r c ol l v. M i am i -D ade C ou nt y, 48 0 F . 3d 10 72 , 10 75 n. 1 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). O n M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , p la in tif f R u th D y e r( " D y e r " ) le f t th e R id g e p o r t P u b , a r e s t a ur a nti n N a pl e s , F l or i da , a nd, w hi l e i nt oxi c a t e d, s a tdow n i n the dr i ve r ' s s e a tof a T oy ot a P a s e o be l ongi ng t o D w a y ne D y e r , he rthe n- boy f r i e nd ( a nd c ur r e nt hus ba nd) . T he m a na ge rof the r e s t a ur a ntc a l l e d a c a b f orD y e ra nd a l s o c a l l e d the C o llie rC o u n ty S h e r if

f 's O f f ic e to e n s u r e th a t s h e d id n o t d r iv e in to x ic a te d . I n f a c t, D y e rw a s noti nt e ndi ng t o dr i ve a nd ha d c a l l e d he rboy f r i e nd t o c om e ge the ra nd d ri v e h er h o m e t o F o rtM yers. D eput y T rui t tarri ved o n t he sc ene, fol l ow ed short l y there af t erby D eput i es T ut ta nd L e e . T he y a s ke d f orD y e r ' s dr i ve r ' s l i c e ns e , buts he t ol d the m tha ts he d i d n ' th a v e i t , a n d th a ts h e w a s i n t o x i c a t e d a n d w a i t i n g f o rh e rb o y f

r i e n d t o c o meUnder Florida law, those who drive in the state a re de emed to haveg iven their implied 1 c on se nt t o p hysic a l or

c hemic a l te sts fo r alc oh ol l e ve ls i n th e ir blo od or bre ath, or

ri sk suspension of their drivingprivileg es. F la. Stat. § 316.1932. Ac co rd i n g t o th e p art i es , th i s i s kn o wnas "s l ip p i n g. " T h e c u ff edp er s o ns t ep s thro u gh 2 he r cuf fe d a rm s to bringhe r a

rm s f ro m th eba c k to thefront.

3 g e th e r . De p u ty Hu m a n n th e n a r r i v e d a n d a s k e d Dy e rt o g e to u to f th e c a r . He att em pt ed t o p er form fi el d sob ri ety t es t s butD ye r r ef used, re peat i ng thatshe w as no tdri vi ng , and say i ng , "J ustgo ahea d and arre stm e. " H um ann t hen h andcuffed D y e r . D y e ra s ke d tha the rha nds be c uf f e d i n f r ontbe c a us e of

a n a r m i nj ur y , but H um ann refus ed and cuffed her hands behi nd her back. H um ann ann ou nced t hat D ye r w as un der a rr es tand b egan t o rea d h erthe F l ori da i m pl i ed consentno t i ce . 1 D y e rp r o te s te d th a t s h e h a d n o t b e e n d r iv in g a n d g r e w a g ita te d . T ru itt a n d T u tt s to o d a t D y e r 's s id e to h o ld h e rs till, w h ile H u m a n n p la c e d h is h a n d o v e rh e rm o u th to q u ie t h e rw h ile h e r e a d th e im p lie d c o n s e n t n o tic e . D y e rth e n k ic k e d H u m a n n in the l e g. A ttha tpoi nt , the de put i e s t ol d D y e rtha ts he w a s a l s o unde ra r r e s tf or bat t ery on a po l i ce offi ce r, and t hey pl ac ed her i n t he back of t he pat rol ca r. A tthi s j un cture D w ay ne D ye r a rr i ved o n t he sc ene. D eput y T rui t tthen no t i ce d t hatR ut h D ye r had m ov ed her cuff ed hand s f

rom behi nd her back t o h er f r ont , t o e a s e the pa i n i n he ra r m s . H um a nn pul l e d D y e routof the pa tr ol c a ra nd, 2 w i th s om e s truggl e , r e c uf f e d he rha nds be hi nd he ra nd r e tur ne d he rt o the pa tr ol c a r . A c c or di ng t o D y e r , dur i ng thi s r e c uf f i ng the de f

e nda nt s s hove d he ra ga i ns tthe4

c a r , s l a m m e d he rhe a d a ga i ns tthe c a r , kne e d he ri n the l e g a nd l ow e rba c k, a nd spra ye d h erw i th p epper s pray . D ye r r es i st ed du ri ng the re cuff i ng and agai n k i cked th e d ep u t i es. H um a nn us e d a n una uthor i z e d c uf f i ng t e c hni que w he n he c uf f e d D y e rthe s e c ond t i m e , pl a c i ng both c uf f s e a c h a r ound both w r i s t s , w i th one w r i s ton t op of th e o th e r . O n c e s u b d u e d , s h e w a s p la c e d b a c k in th e r e a ro f th e p a tr o l c a r . A c c or di ng t o D w a y ne D y e r , a f t e rthe a l t e r c a t i on ha d e nde d, H um a nn ope ne d the d o o r t o th e p atro l car an d ag ai n sp rayed D yer w i th p ep p er sp ray. D yer w as tran sp o rt ed an d ch arg ed w i th d ri v i n g u n d er t h e i n fl u en ce ("D U I") and t hree coun t s of batt ery on a l aw enforc em entoffi ce r. T he D U I c harge w as l a t e rd r o p p e d , a n d o n e c o u n to f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s twi th v i o l e n c e wa s a d d e d . On A ug ust12 , 20 03 , she pl ed no cont es tt o a si ng l e c harge of re si st i ng w i th v i ol ence , butbe c a us e of

a s ubs e que ntpa r ol e vi ol a t i on the ve r di c tw a s c ha nge d t o gui l ty on S e p te m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 . S h e w a s s e n te n c e d to o n e y e a ro f c o m m u n ity c o n tr o l, f ol l ow e d by one y e a rof

pr oba t i on. O n M ay 18 , 20 05 , D ye r began t he curr entac t i on se eki ng dam ages fr om L ee , T rui t t , H um ann, and T ut t(the "def endant s" ) und er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. D ye r c la im e d th a t, th r o u g h th e iru s e o f e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e d u r in g h e ra r r e s t, th e d e f e n d a n ts d e p r iv e d h e ro f

h e rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts u n d e rth e F o u r th , F if th , a n d F o u r te e n th5

A m endm ent s of the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . O n Jul y 26, 20 06 , the di stri ctcourt g r a n te d d e f

e n d a n ts ' m o tio n f

o rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, s a y in g th a t D y e r 's § 1 9 8 3 s u it w a s ba r r e d by H e c k v. H um phr e y . T hi s t i m e l y a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ' s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nt , dr a w i ng a l l f a c t s a nd i nf

e r e nc e s i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o D y e r . S e e B i r c ol l , 480 F . 3d a t1081 n. 12. In H ec k v . H um ph re y, the S up re m e C ou rthel d t hat w hen a st at e pri soner s ee ks dam ages i n a § 1 98 3 sui t , the di stri ctcourt m u s t c o n s id e rw h e th e ra ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e p la in tif

f w o u ld n e c e s s a r ily im p ly th e in v a lid ity o f h is c o n v ic tio n o rs e n te n c e ; if it w ou l d, the com pl ai ntm ustbe di sm i ss ed un l es s the pl ai nt i ff ca n dem on stra t e thatthe conv i ct i on or se nt ence has a l re ady bee n i nva l i da t e d. 51 2 U . S . at48 7. T he C ou rtgave t he fol l ow i ng as an exam pl e of a § 1 98 3 sui tthat w oul d be ba r r e d: A s t a t e de f

e nda nti s c onvi c t e d of

a nd s e nt e nc e d f

orthe c r i m e of re si st i ng arre st , defi ned as i nt ent i on al l y pre vent i ng a pea ce offi ce r f r om e f f e c t i ng a l a w f

ul a r r e s t . . . . H e the n br i ngs a § 1983 a c t i on a g a in s t th e a r r e s tin g o f

f ic e rs e e k in g d a m a g e s f

o rv io la tio n o f

h is F ou rth A m endm entri gh tt o b e f re e f rom un re as on abl e s ei zure s. In order t o p re vai l i n t hi s § 19 83 ac t i on , he w ou l d h ave t o n egat e a n e l e m e ntof

the of f e ns e of w hi c h he ha s be e n c onvi c t e d. R e ga r dl e s s of the st at e l aw concerni ng re s j ud i ca t a the § 1 98 3 act i on w i l l no tl i e. Id. at48 7 n . 6 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ).6

T h i s m i g h tseem atfi rstt o d i sp o se o f th e i ssu e b efo re u s, ex cep tth atth e u se of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e m a y notne c e s s a r i l y m a ke D y e r ' s a r r e s tunl a w f ul , pa r t i c ul a r l y f

or th e D U I a n d b a tte r y c h a r g e s . C f . I v e s te rv . S ta te , 3 9 8 S o . 2 d 9 2 6 , 9 3 0 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) ( n o tin g d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n a r r e s t a n d u n la w f u l f o r c e u s e d in arrest ). F u rth erm o re, th e l aw fu l n ess o f th e arrest i s n o tan el em en to f th e o ffen se of re si st i ng arre stw i th v i ol ence . S t at e v. E spi no sa , 68 6 S o. 2d 13 45 , 13 47 (F l a. 1996) ; S t a t e v. D a vi s , 652 S o. 2d 942, 943 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1995) ; D e l a ne y v. S ta te , 4 8 9 S o . 2 d 8 9 1 , 8 9 2 - 9 3 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e r e f o r e , a s u c c e s s f

u l § 1983 c l a i m a ga i ns ta n a rr e s t i ng of f i c e rf orus i ng e xc e s s i ve f

or c e doe s not n e c e s s a r ily n e g a te a n e le m e n t o f th e u n d e r ly in g c h a r g e o f r e s is tin g a r r e s t w ith v io le n c e , in c o n tr a s t to th e e x a m p le in H e c k c ite d a b o v e . H er e, the defendant s t ake a di ff er entt ac k. T hey a rgue t hat , ra ther than negat i ng an el em entof the offens e, a s ucce ss ful § 1 98 3 sui tw ou l d est abl i sh w hat w ou l d h ave been an af

fi rm at i ve defense t o t he un derl yi ng offe nse, nam el y s el fd e f e n s e . B e c a u s e a p e r s o n is e n title d to " r e s is t th e u s e o f e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e in m a ki ng the a r r e s t , " S t a t e v. H ol l e y , 480 S o. 2d 94, 96 ( F l a . 1985) , pl a i nt i f f ' s a c t s of vi ol e nc e a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s w oul d ha ve be e n j us t i f i e d, de f e nda nt s a r gue , a nd th u s c o u ld n o t h a v e f

o r m e d th e b a s is f

o rh e rc o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . T h e ru le in H e c k , th e y a r g u e , s h o u ld o p e r a te to b a ra s u it f o rth is r e a s o n ju s t a s m u c h a s if it7

n e g a te d a n e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e . T h e d e f

e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t b y p le a d in g g u ilty to re si st i ng arre stw i th v i ol ence , the pl ai nt i ff ca nn otno w sa y thather r es i st ance w as j ust i fi ed, w hi ch i tw ou l d h ave been i f the defendant s use d exces si ve force . T he pr obl e m w i th thi s a ppr oa c h i s tha tthe l ogi c a l ne c e s s i ty tha ti s a tthe h e a r t o f th e H e c k o p in io n is n o t p r e s e n t h e r e . I t is n o t th e c a s e th a t a s u c c e s s f u l § 19 83 sui tby the pl ai nt i ff w ou l d "nece ss ar i l y i m pl y the i nv al i di ty of [ her] c o n v ic tio n " f

o rr e s is tin g a r r e s t w ith v io le n c e . H e c k , 5 1 2 U .S . a t 4 8 7 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t u n d e r s c o r e d th e im p o r ta n c e o f lo g ic a l n e c e s s ity in H ec k w i th ano ther e xam pl e: [A ] sui tfor dam ages attri bu t abl e t o an al l egedl y unrea sonabl e s ea rc h m ay l i e e ven i f the chal l enged sear ch prod uced evi dence thatw as in tr o d u c e d in a s ta te c r im in a l tr ia l r e s u ltin g in th e § 1 9 8 3 p la in tif f 's s t i l l - out s t a ndi ng c onvi c t i on. B e c a us e of doc tr i ne s l i ke i nde pe nde nt s our c e a nd i ne vi t abl e di s c ove r y a nd e s pe c i a l l y ha r m l e s s e r r or , s uc h a § 1983 a c t i on, e ve n i f

s uc c e s s f ul , w oul d notne c e s s a r i l y i m pl y tha tthe p la in tif f 's c o n v ic tio n w a s u n la w f u l. I d . n .7 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . I n o th e rw o r d s , a s lo n g a s it is pos s i bl e tha ta § 1983 s ui tw oul d notne ga t e the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on, the n the s u it is n o t H e c k - b a r r e d . I n th e f ir s t e x a m p le in H e c k , a s u c c e s s f u l § 1 9 8 3 s u it w ou l d n ec es sa ri l y negat e one of t he el em ent s of the un derl yi ng offe nse; un der th o s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s a c o n v ic tio n c o u ld n o t s ta n d , a s a m a tte ro f la w . T h is is in c o n tr a s t to th e s e c o n d e x a m p le w h e r e , e v e n f o llo w in g a s u c c e s s f

u l § 1 9 8 3 s u it,After discussing thePreiser de cision and the c onflicts between habea s and § 1983, the 3 majority ultimately

rea ched its conc lusion in Heck by analog izi ng§ 1983 to the tort of malicious 8 the r e w oul d s t i l l e xi s ta c ons truc t i on of the f a c t s tha tw oul d a l l ow the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on t o s t a nd. T he e m pha s i s on l ogi c a l ne c e s s i ty i s a r e s ul tof the C our t ' s unde r l y i ng c o n c e r n in H e c k : th a t § 1 9 8 3 a n d th e f e d e r a l h a b e a s c o rp u s s ta tu te , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , w e r e " o n a c o llis io n c o u r s e ." H e c k , 5 1 2 U .S . a t 4 9 2 ( S o u te r , J ., c o n c u r r in g ) . T he C ou rt ' s dec i si on i n H ec k w as i n p ar tan ext ensi on of the rul e s etou ti n P re i se r v. R odr i gue z , 411 U . S . 475 ( 1973) , tha t" ha be a s c orpus i s the e xc l us i ve r e m e dy f or a s t a t e pr i s one rw ho c ha l l e nge s the f a c tordur a t i on of

hi s c onf i ne m e nta nd s e e ks i m m e di a t e ors pe e di e rr e l e a s e , e ve n though s uc h a c l a i m m a y c om e w i thi n the l i t e r a l t e r m s of

§ 1983. " H e c k, 512 U . S . a t481. I f pr i s one r s c oul d c ha l l e nge the const i tut i on al i ty of thei r c on vi ct i on s und er§ 1 98 3, i tw ou l d u nd er m i ne the po l i cy of , i nt e ra l i a , e ns ur i ng tha ts t a t e r e m e di e s a r e e xha us t e d be f or e a ha be a s pe t i t i on c o u ld lie in f

e d e r a l c o u r t. A llo w in g § 1 9 8 3 to d o th e w o r k o f h a b e a s w o u ld c r e a te an end-run aroun d t he procedures of § 225 4. P re i se r, 41 1 U . S . at49 0. H ec k e x te n d e d th a t ru le to § 1 9 8 3 s u its f o rd a m a g e s , w h ic h , w h ile th e y w o u ld n o t r e s u lt in r e le a s e f

o rth e p la in tif

f s , w o u ld s im ila r ly a d d r e s s th e u n d e r ly in g c o n s titu tio n a lity of the c onvi c t i on orc onf

i ne m e nti n a w a y tha ti s r e s e r ve d f orha be a s . S e e H e c k, 5 1 2 U .S . a t 4 8 0 - 8 1 ; id . a t 4 9 1 ( T h o m a s , J ., c o n c u r r in g ) ; id . a t 4 9 5 ( S o u te r , J ., 3prosec ution. Heck, 512 U.S. at 484. Oneelement of that causeof ac tion is t ermination of the prior criminal procee ding in f avor of the ac cused, out of c oncer ns for finality

and consistenc y . I d. at 484-85. Othe rwise, there could betwo conflictingjudicial resolutions arisingout of the same set of

fac ts. The majority

thus based its holding on " the hoar y principle that c ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng ing thevalidity

of outstandingcriminal judgme nts ." I d. at 48 6. B ut t hema jority' s a nalysis no ne the le ss p ro c e e ds from t hesame concerns as in Preiser

of the potential ove rlap be tween § 1983 a nd habea s corpus. I d. at 480-81; see id. at 491 (Thomas, J., concurring ); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (noting that "c ivil rights damag es ac tions . . . fall at the marg ins of habea s") . 9 co n cu rri n g ) ("T h o u g h i n co n trastt o P rei ser th e st at e p ri so n er h ere seek s d am ag es, no tre l ea se fr om cust od y, the di st i nct i on m akes no di ff er ence w hen t he dam ages soug htar e f

or un const i tut i on al conv i ct i on or confi nem ent . ") . P re i se r a nd H ec k c a r v e d o u tf

r o m § 1 9 8 3 ' s o th e r w i s e " b r o a d r e me d i a l p r o t e c t i o n , " Pr e i s e r , 4 1 1 U . S. a t488, c e r t a i n s ui t s tha t , be c a us e the y w oul d ne ga t e the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on a nd w ou l d t hu s tre ad on the t erri t ory of habeas corpus, w er e notcogn i za bl e und er§ 1 9 8 3 . H eck , 5 1 2 U . S . at4 8 1 , 4 8 6 -8 7 . B u tth atco n cern si m p l y d o es n o tari se unl e s s the r e i s a ne c e s s a r y l ogi c a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n a s uc c e s s f ul § 1983 s ui ta nd the negat i on of the un derl yi ng conv i ct i on ; anythi ng l es s w ou l d n otra i se the spec t er of a n " e nd- run" a r ound ha be a s , norw oul d i tc r e a t e the pr obl e m of tw o i nc ons i s t e nt j ud gm ent s a ri si ng ou tof the sa m e f ac t s. S ee N el son, 54 1 U . S . at64 7 ("W e w er e carefu l i n H eck t o stress th e i m p o rt an ce o f th e t erm ' n ecessaril y. ' ") O ther c ou rt s t o h ave a dd re ss ed the appl i ca bi l i ty of H ec k i n si tuat i on s s i m i l ar t o the i ns t a ntc a s e ha ve e m pha s i z e d the i m por t a nc e of l ogi c a l ne c e s s i ty a nd the l i m i t e d s c ope of

the H e c k hol di ng. S e e , e . g. , T hor e v. H ow e , 466 F . 3d 173, 18010

(1stC i r. 20 06 ) ( "A § 1 98 3 exces si ve forc e c l ai m brou gh tagai nsta pol i ce offi ce r th a t a r is e s o u t o f

th e o f f ic e r 's u s e o f

f o r c e d u r in g a n a r r e s t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ily c a ll i nt o q uest i on the val i di ty of a n u nd er l yi ng st at e c on vi ct i on [of a ss aul ton a pol i ce of f i c e r ] a nd s o i s notba r r e d by H e c k. " ) ; V a nG i l de rv. B a ke r , 435 F . 3d 689, 692 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng tha ta s uc c e s s f ul § 1983 s ui tf

ore xc e s s i ve f

or c e w oul d not i m pl y the i nva l i di ty of

the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on f orr e s i s t i ng a l a w e nf

or c e m e nt offi ce r) ; S m i th v . C i ty of H em et , 39 4 F . 3d 68 9, 69 8 (9t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc) (h o l d i n g th atH eck d o es n o tb ar § 1 9 8 3 su i tb ecau se co n v i ct i o n fo r resi st i n g arrest coul d st and b as ed on pre- arre stac t s of r es i st ance , and t hu s the fa ctthatarre stm ay ha ve be e n unl a w f

ul due t o e xc e s s i ve f

or c e di d notne ga t e the unde r l y i ng conv i ct i on ); S anford v. M ot t s, 25 8 F . 3d 11 17 , 11 19 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ho l di ng that H ec k d oes notbar § 19 83 sui tbeca use r ec ord d i d n otcl ea rl y e st abl i sh w hether e xc e s s i ve f

or c e t ook pl a c e dur i ng, ora f t e r , the a r r e s t ) ; M a r t i ne z v. C i ty of A l buque r que , 184 F . 3d 1123, 1125 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng tha tH e c k doe s not bar § 19 83 sui tbeca use the re cord di d n otrul e outthatpl ai nt i ff coul d h ave been c onvi c t e d f

orof f e ns e s pr i ort o a r r e s t , a nd tha t , e ve n i f he w e r e not , j ur y c oul d f i nd un der N ew M exi co l aw that"pol i ce offi ce rs ef fe ctuat ed a l aw ful arre st. . . i n an unl a w f ul m a nne r , " thus notne ga t i ng unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on) ; N e l s on v. J a s hur e k, 1 0 9 F .3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 - 4 6 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o ld in g th a t H e c k d o e s n o t b a r§ 1 9 8 3 s u itSee also Wells v. Cramer, 158 F ed. Appx. 203, 203 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished 4 opinion) (" A plaintiff may prevail on a claim for e x cessive f orcewithout necessa

rily implying the invalidity

of the unde rlying c onviction for the of fenseg iving rise to the excessive force. T o the extent that W ells' s complaint alleg ed an e x cessive useof force a fter hewas a rre sted, re stra ine d a

nd po se d n o thre at to thede fend ant o ff ic e rs , h is s e c tio n 1 98 3 a c tio n, if su c c e ssf ul, wou ldno t n eces sar il y

impl y th e inval id ity

of h is un derl yin g conv ict io n an d i s n otHeck -barred. ") (citations omitted). As an unpublished opinion, Wells is not binding authority . 11th Cir. R. 36- 2. 11 beca use a fi nd i ng of exces si ve force w ou l d n otnece ss ar i l y i m pl y thatarre stw as unl a w f ul unde rP e nns y l va ni a l a w ) . B uts e e H a i nz e v. R i c ha r ds , 207 F . 3d 795, 798 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (h o l d i n g th ata § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m fo r ex cessi v e fo rce "i s b arred as a m a tte ro f la w if b r o u g h t b y a n in d iv id u a l c o n v ic te d o f a g g r a v a te d a s s a u lt r e la te d to th e s a m e e v e n ts " ) . In thi s c i rc ui t , w e have previ ou sl y a l l ow ed § 1 98 3 sui t s f or exces si ve force t o pr oc e e d i n the f

a c e of a H e c k c ha l l e nge . S e e W i l l i ngha m v. L oghna n, 261 F . 3d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( " [ A ] f in d in g o f e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e b y th e ju r y in th is c i vi l c a s e doe s notne c e s s a r i l y c a l l i nt o que s t i on the va l i di ty of s e c t i on 1983 P l ai nt i ff ' s c ri m i nal conv i ct i on [f or att em pt ed m urder and bat t ery of a n o ff i ce r] . ") , ce rt . grant ed and v ac at ed on ot her groun ds, 53 7 U . S . 80 1 (20 02 ). 4 T h e s e c a s e s d o n o t a d d r e s s th e s p e c if ic a r g u m e n t p u t f

o r w a r d h e r e , th a t a succ es sf ul § 1 98 3 sui tshou l d b e bar re d b ec ause i tw ou l d est abl i sh thatthe pl ai nt i ff w oul d ha ve ha d a n a f

f i r m a t i ve de f

e ns e t o the unde r l y i ng c ha r ge . T he y do, h o w e v e r , u n d e r s c o r e th a t c o u r ts w ill a llo w § 1 9 8 3 s u its to p r o c e e d w h e n it is" Who e ve r k no wi ng ly and wi llf ully re sis ts, ob str

uc ts, or op po se s a

ny of fi c e r a s d e fine d in 5 § 943.10(1), ( 2), (3) , (6), ( 7), (8) , or (9) ; member of theParole Commission or any administrative aide or

supervisor e mployed by

the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation off

icer ; personnel or

representative of the Department of L aw Enf orce ment; or other pe rson leg ally

authorized to execute proc ess in the execution of leg al proc ess or in the lawful e x ecution of a

ny leg al duty , by

offeringor doingviolence to the person of such of fice r or leg ally authorized person, is guilty of a f elony of the third degree , punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084." Fla. Stat. § 843.01. 12 pos s i bl e tha tthe f

a c t s c oul d a l l ow a s uc c e s s f ul § 1983 s ui ta nd the unde r l y i ng conv i ct i on bo th t o st and w i tho utcont ra di ct i ng ea ch ot her. T urni ng t o t he ca se athand , D ye r pl ed gu i l ty t o t he fol l ow i ng char ge: O n o rA b o u t M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 [ ,] in C o llie rC o u n ty , F lo r id a , d id k n o w in g ly a n d w illf

u lly r e s is t, o b s tru c t[ ,] o ro p p o s e a n o f f ic e rto w it: D e puty H um a nn orD e puty T rui t torD e puty T ut t , i n the l a w f ul e xe c ut i on of

a l e ga l duty , t o w i t : c onduc t i ng a n a r r e s t , by of f e r i ng or d o in g v io le n c e to th e p e r s o n o f s a id o f f ic e r , c o n tr a r y to F lo r id a S ta tu te 8 4 3 .0 1 .[ ]

5 S i nc e the pl a i nt i f

f pl e d gui l ty , thi s i s the onl y of f i c i a l r e c or d of

the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the pl a i nt i f

f ' s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , a nd i tdoe s nots pe c i f y a ny pa r t i c ul a ra c t s of vi ol ence , w hen t hey occ urre d, or even t o w hi ch of t he three depu t i es they w er e d ir e c te d . E v e n a s s u m in g th a t w e w o u ld b a ra § 1 9 8 3 s u it if its s u c c e s s w o u ld i m pl y thatthere w ou l d h ave been an af fi rm at i ve defense t o t he un derl yi ng char ge, t o say thatD ye r' s c l ai m i s H ec k-barr ed w e w ou l d t hen h ave t o say , t o a l og i ca l c e r t a i nty , tha te ve r y a c tof vi ol e nc e — e ve r y ki c k, punc h, e t c . — by D y e rdur i ng the ent i re epi sode i s c harged i n t he i nform at i on . F urtherm ore, w e w ou l d h ave t o say tha te ve r y one of

thos e vi ol e nta c t s w a s a n a c tof s e l f - de f e ns e i n r e s pons e t o theThe de fenda nts attempt to argue that the infor mation must also have included the kic ks 6 at D eputie s T ruitt

and Tutt, wh ic h did n ot o c c ur untillate r in th ea lterc atio n. Ev e n if that w ou ld chang e the result here—and wedo not see how it would—the infor mation charg ed the plaintiff in t hedis jun c tiv e . Sh ewa s c ha

rg e d w ithvio le nc ea g a ins t Huma nn or Tr uitt or Tutt. I f t hee xce ssi vefo rc ewa s n ot m e t by re sis tanc eby

Dye r, then th at e xce ssi vefo rc ec ou ld 7 no t ha vebe e n u se d a s a

de fens eto t

heun de rlyingc onvic tio n. Th e re fo re , th at f orc ec ou ld 13 offi ce rs ' use of e xces si ve force and t here fore w ou l d h ave been j ust i fi ed. T o rea d the i nf or m a t i on tha tw a y , w he n i tpl a i nl y s a y s no s uc h thi ng, w oul d be goi ng m a ny st eps t oo fa r. T o de m ons tr a t e thi s , w e c a n s i m pl y l ook a tthe be gi nni ng a nd a tthe e nd of th e al t ercat i o n . S t art i n g w i th th e b eg i n n i n g , th e p art i es ag ree t h atD yer' s fi rst vi ol entac tw as ki cki ng D eput y H um ann i n t he l eg w hi l e s he w as bei ng pl ac ed unde ra r r e s tf

orD U I ( a c ha r ge l a t e rdr oppe d) . T he a l l e ge d e xc e s s i ve f or c e di d not o c c u ru n til w e ll a f

te rth a t p o in t, w h e n s h e h a d a lr e a d y b e e n h a n d c u f f e d , p la c e d in the pa tr ol c a r , a nd the n r e m ove d f r om the pa tr ol c a r . T he r e i s the r e f or e no a r g u m e n t th a t D y e r 's in itia l k ic k c o u ld h a v e b e e n ju s tif ie d a s s e lf

- d e f e n s e . E v e n if the r e s tof

he rki c ks w e r e i n di r e c tr e s pons e t o the de f e nda nt s ' e xc e s s i ve f

or c e , the c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e w oul d s t i l l be a bl e t o s t a nd ba s e d on tha ti ni t i a l ki c k. 6 T u r n in g to th e e n d o f

th e a lte r c a tio n , f

o rit to b e th e c a s e th a t a s u c c e s s f u l § 19 83 sui tw ou l d con tra di ctthe un derl yi ng conv i ct i on , ea ch ac tof exces si ve force b y th e o f f ic e r s m u s t h a v e b e e n m e t b y a n a c t o f v io le n c e b y D y e r , w h ic h w a s in tur n pa r tof

the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on. T he r e f or e , s o l ong a s the l a s ta c ti n the 7support a § 1983 suit without neg atingthe underlying c onviction.

It appea rs that this might havebeen thecase . Acc ordingto the plaintiff' s version of the 8 fac ts, so meof

thee xce ssi vefo rc eoc c ur re d a ft e r s heha d b e e n s ub du e d, re c uf fe d, and re tur ne d to the patrol c ar. In Adams v. Dyer, N o. 06-1125, 2007 WL431511, at *3 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2007) (no 9 relation), the Tenth Circuit found that a § 1983 suit ag ainst officers for useof excessive force wa s H e c k- ba

rre d b e c a us ethejur

y in t hetria l f or theun de rlyingof

fens eof re sis tin garre st specific ally

heard and re

jected a n excessive-force de fense . Simi larly , in McCann v. Neilsen, 466 F.3d 619, 621 ( 7th Cir. 2006), the Seventh Circuit held that, although "a plaintiff who has be en convicted of

resistingarrest or assa

ulting a policeofficer duringthe cour se of a n arrest is not per seHe c k- ba

rre d f ro m maint a ini nga

§ 1 98 3 a c tio n f

or e xce ssi vefo rc este mmi ngfrom t hesame confrontation," hewill be barred if his § 1983 complaint makes spe cific f actual alleg ations that areinconsistent with the fac ts upon which his criminal convictions were base d. 14 a lte r c a tio n w a s o n e o f

e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e b y th e p o lic e , a § 1 9 8 3 s u it o n th a t b a s is 8 w oul d notne ga t e the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on. T he s e tw o s c e na r i os a r e e xa m pl e s of the m or e ge ne r a l poi nttha tthe r e i s no ne e d, ba s e d on the i nf

or m a t i on i n the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on, t o c onc l ude ne c e s s a r i l y tha ta l l of

pl a i nt i f f ' s a c t s of vi ol e nc e w e r e a l s o a c t s of s e l f - de f e ns e , or tha te a c h a c tof

e xc e s s i ve f

or c e by the de f

e nda nt s w a s m e tby a n a c tof vi ol e nc e by D y e rtha tw a s the n c ha r ge d i n the i nf or m a t i on. A r e a s ona bl e j ur y c oul d, w i thout t oo m uc h tr oubl e , f

i nd both tha tthe de f

e nda nt s us e d e xc e s s i ve f or c e , a nd tha tnot a l l of pl a i nt i f f ' s vi ol e nta c t s w e r e j us t i f i e d a s s e l f

- de f e ns e . I n othe rw or ds , the 9 det er m i nat i on i s ul t i m at el y f ac tual , and t hu s w e c anno tsa y, as a m att erof l aw , that a s ucce ss ful § 1 98 3 sui tw ou l d n ec es sa ri l y negat e the un derl yi ng conv i ct i on gi venIn a similar ca se, the F ifth Circuit held that Hec k barred a § 1983 c laim based on 10 e xce ssi vefo rc e , b e c a

us eit w ou ld i mply

that th eplaintif

f c ou ld h aveha d a

se lf -d e fens e justification for his underly ing c onviction, battery

of an of fice r. Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F .3d 868, 87 3 ( 5th Cir . 1 99 6) . T hec ourt

in Hud so n s a id t

hat whe ther o r n ot t

hepo lic eus e d re a so na

ble fo rc e re late d to thede gre eof re sis tanc e by

theplaintif

f a nd wh e ther i t w a s ju sti fi e d. B e c a us e that resistanc e for

med the basis of thebattery charg e, the c onviction would be neg ated if the resistanc e wa s found to be justified. I d. We disagreewith the rea soning of the Fif th Circuit for there a so ns dis c us se d in

thi s o pin ion . H ow e ve r, e ve n if wewereto agre ethat su c h a sc e na ri o had the log ical conne ction that Hec k require s, this case would still be distinguishable. Here, unlike in Hudson, there a re f acts in the re cord f

rom which a

rea sonable jury

could dra w the c on c lus ion

that at le a st s omeof

Dye r' s re sis tanc ewa s n ot in re sp on seto t hede fend ants ' e xce ssi vefo rc e . Se eB a lla rd v. B ur ton , 4 44 F .3 d 3 91 , 4 01 (5 th C ir . 2 00 6) (c on c ludingthat f a c ts would allow a § 1983 c laim and a c onviction for assa ult on a police off

icer to coexist ). Dyer f ocuses on the que stion of what events made up the " arrest" and whe ther some of 11 thee xce ssi vefo rc etoo k p la c ea ft e r t hearre st, in whic h c a seit c ou ld n ot h avea lso be e n th eba sis for her cha

rg e of resisting a

rre st. This is another example of how the f acts a s they

stand in the rec ord could beread to allow both the § 1983 suit and the underly ing c onviction. Thus, it is not nece ssary for us to re ach thespecificquestion of when thearrest was c ompleted. Fur thermore , unlike the plaintiff, wedo not rea d the district court' s opinion as relying on a broad de finition of the " arrest proce ss" a s distinct from the "a rre st" (a notion for which there is no authority in the c a se s o n e xce ssi vefo rc eor re sis tin garre st) . Rather, thedis tric t c ourt ba se d it s d e c isi on

on its re a so nin gthat " thefa c ts s up po rtingplaintif f' s e xce ssi vefo rc ec laim c ou ld h avefo rm e d th eba sis f o r a d e f e n s eto th er e s is ti n gar

r e s t w it hv io len c eo f

f e n s e . " D ye r

v . L e e , N o . 0 5 - 0 0 2 3 7 , 2 0 0 6 WL 2092264, at *5 (M.D. F la. July 26, 2006) (e mphasis added) . Whil e this is true, it is not true that those fac ts must have formed thebasis for a defense—and that is the crux of our holding today . 15 th e f a c ts in th e r e c o r d . T h e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th is c a s e a n d th e f ir s t e x a m p le in 10 H ec k i s app osi t e: i n t he exam pl e, a f i nd i ng of exces si ve force w ou l d h ave negat ed a n e l e m e n to f

th e o f f e n s e — n o c o n v i c t i o n c o u l d s t a n d a f t e rth a t , a s a m a t t e ro f

l a w; h e r e , a s in th e s e c o n d e x a m p le in H e c k , th e r e is a v e r s io n o f th e f a c ts w h ic h w o u ld a l l ow the c onvi c t i on t o s t a nd. T ha ti s s uf f i c i e nt , unde rH e c k, t o a l l ow the § 1983 s ui tt o pr oc e e d. C f

. H ughe s v. L ot t , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1161 ( 11th C i r . 2003) 11 ( a l l ow i ng § 1983 a c t i on f orunr e a s ona bl e s e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e t o pr oc e e d be c a us e the fa ct s r egar di ng un derl yi ng conv i ct i on w er e unk no w n o n t he re cord, and t hu s i tw asBe causeof our holdingtoday , we ne ed not address the sepa ratequestion of whethe r 12 summary judgme nt was improper

for Deputy

L ee even if it were proper for Humann, Truitt, and 16 i m po ss i bl e t o say thata s ucce ss ful § 1 98 3 sui tw ou l d n egat e thatconv i ct i on ). I n s um m a r y , f

orH e c k t o a ppl y , i tm us tbe the c a s e tha ta s uc c e s s f ul § 1983 s ui ta nd the unde r l y i ng c onvi c t i on be l ogi c a l l y c ontr a di c t or y . H e r e , tha ti s notthe ca se . Indeed, the fa ctual sc enar i o t hatw ou l d force the tw o t o con tra di ctea ch ot her r e qui r e s s uc h a t i ghtne s s of e ve nt s a s t o be a l m os ti m pl a us i bl e — no vi ol e nta c tof th e p la in tif

f c o u ld b e u n p r o v o k e d a n d n o e x c e s s iv e f o r c e b y th e d e f

e n d a n ts c o u ld go un answ er ed. T o al l ow H ec k t o b ara § 19 83 sui tun der these ci rc um st ance s w o u ld b e to s tr e tc h it w e ll b e y o n d its lim ite d h o ld in g . A s th e S e v e n th C ir c u it s t a t e d: W e r e w e to u p h o ld th e a p p lic a tio n o f H e c k in th is c a s e , it w o u ld i m pl y tha tonc e a pe r s on r e s i s t s l a w e nf or c e m e nt , he ha s i nvi t e d the p o lic e to in f

lic t a n y r e a c tio n o rr e tr ib u tio n th e y c h o o s e , w h ile forf ei t i ng the ri gh tt o sue for dam ages . P utanot her w ay , po l i ce s ubdui ng a s us pe c tc oul d us e a s m uc h f or c e a s the y w a nt e d— a nd be s hi e l de d f

r om a c c ount a bi l i ty unde rc i vi l l a w — a s l ong a s the pr os e c ut orc oul d ge tthe pl a i nt i f f c onvi c t e d on a c ha r ge of r e s i s t i ng. T hi s w oul d ope n the doort o unde s i r a bl e be ha vi ora nd guta l a r ge s ha r e of the pr ot e c t i ons pr ovi de d by § 1983. V anG i l der, 43 5 F . 3d at69 2. H ec k w as no ti nt ended t o b e a shi el d t o p rot ec t o f f ic e r s f r o m § 1 9 8 3 s u its . I t w a s in te n d e d to p r o te c t h a b e a s c o rp u s a n d p r o m o te fi nal i ty a nd consi st ency . P rovi ded t ho se go al s a re m et , a § 19 83 sui ti s notbarr ed by H e c k. 12Tutt. Plaintif f' s § 19 83 c la im ag a ins t L e eis d e ri vativ eof thec laims a g a ins t th eoth e r d e fend ants , and therefore summary

judgme nt should be denied a s to all four def endants. 17 I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the forgoi ng re as on s, w e R EVER SE the deci si on of the di stri ctcourt a nd RE MAND w ith in s tru c tio n s to d e n y s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to d e f e n d a n ts .