Opinion ID: 3012430
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaint against John

Text: The District Court dismissed Bresko's claim against Detective John on the ground that, under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Bresko's 1983 claim against John was not ripe because the criminal proceedings against him had not terminated in his favor. On appeal, Bresko argues that his claim against John is for false arrest and Heck is therefore inapplicable because, as we have stated, a claim of unlawful arrest, standing alone, does not necessarily implicate the validity of a criminal prosecution following the arrest. Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 126 n.5 (3d Cir. 1998) (quotation and citation omitted). In other words, Bresko argues that he can seek to recover damages for false arrest regardless of the outcome of the state criminal proceedings against him. We do not here address the merits of this argument. On remand, the District Court shall consider this argument if Bresko continues to press it. John argues in his supplemental brief that Bresko's nolo contendere pleas to the amended informations, which charged facts underlying the arrest on the original criminal charges, collaterally estop Bresko from challenging the lawfulness of his arrest. He also argues that the state court's decision on Bresko's Omnibus Pretrial Motion acts to collaterally estop Bresko's claim. The state court denied Bresko's motion to vacate his arrest, finding that John had probable cause to arrest Bresko. This decision was based on testimony from John and Cole, the Assistant District Attorney involved in the negotiation of the Plea Agreement and the arguments of both parties. Bresko responds that under Pennsylvania law a plea of nolo contendere cannot be used as an admission in any civil suit, including the pending 1983 action, and that application of collateral estoppel would not be appropriate in these circumstances. The District Court did not reach these issues arising from Bresko's complaint against John because it dismissed the case before the termination of the criminal proceedings. That court did not have the opportunity to consider the parties' arguments in light of the changed circumstances, and it is unclear whether there are material factual issues to be resolved. Now that the criminal proceedings against Bresko have terminated, among the relevant questions to be considered are whether Heck applies and, if so, whether the proceedings have terminated in Bresko's favor. We will therefore remand Bresko's complaint against John to the District Court.