Opinion ID: 2996323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case’s Bivens Claims

Text: Case argues that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because they unconstitutionally seized him and violated the Fifth Amendment by infringing on his liberty, contrary to his procedural due process rights, and harassing him, contrary to his substantive due process rights. This court previously explained that “a seizure that passes muster under the Fourth Amendment should also satisfy the requirements of the due process clause.” McKinney v. George, 726 F.2d 1183, 1187 (7th Cir. 1984); see also Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 275 (holding that substantive due process is not a basis for challenging the lawfulness of arrest). Thus, if this court upholds Case’s arrest when it is reviewed under Fourth Amendment rules, Case will not succeed by recasting his challenge in the language of due process. McKinney, 726 F.2d at 1187. The Bivens Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment by a federal agent acting under color of federal authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages flowing from the unconstitutional conduct. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 389. Case argues that he is entitled to damages because he was arrested without probable cause when he was pepper sprayed. Case claims that at the time he was sprayed, he was merely attempting to walk away from the officers. Because Case plead guilty to resisting arrest, however, his claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck court held that: [I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render 8 No. 01-3803 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 a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. This court further held that, in addition to § 1983 claims, Heck applies to Bivens claims. Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997). If this court were to allow Case to recover damages because he was arrested without probable cause, Case’s conviction would be rendered invalid because, under Illinois law, so long as there is physical resistance an officer has probable cause to arrest someone who resists an arrest attempt. Ryan v. County of DuPage, 45 F.3d 1090, 1093 (7th Cir. 1995). Thus, because Case’s resisting arrest conviction has not been called into question, Heck bars Case’s Fourth Amendment claim. In upholding Case’s arrest under Fourth Amendment standards, we further conclude that his due process arguments fail. See McKinney, 726 F.2d at 1187. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court. A true Copy: Teste: ________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—4-25-03