How Humphrey v. Heck can bar Section 1983 claims and strategies to circumvent it.
Humphrey v. Heck serves as a cornerstone case in understanding the limitations placed on Section 1983 lawsuits for police misconduct. The ruling essentially posits that if a civil claim would "necessarily imply" the invalidity of a criminal conviction, the plaintiff must first have that conviction reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated before pursuing a Section 1983 claim.
When a plaintiff has been convicted of "resisting an officer," filing a Section 1983 claim for excessive use of force or wrongful arrest becomes complicated. Arguing that the officer used excessive force or falsely arrested the plaintiff could "necessarily imply" that the "resisting an officer" conviction is invalid. Thus, under Humphrey v. Heck, such a Section 1983 claim may be barred.
One approach is to challenge the "resisting an officer" conviction directly through appeals or other post-conviction relief. If successful, this removes the Humphrey v. Heck barrier.
Another strategy is to focus on independent claims that don't "necessarily imply" the invalidity of the conviction. For instance, arguing that excessive force was used after the plaintiff was subdued and no longer resisting could create a standalone claim that doesn't threaten the validity of the initial conviction.
Once the conviction is expunged or otherwise invalidated, the Humphrey v. Heck barrier is lifted. This may be a longer-term strategy but is sometimes the only viable option.
Humphrey v. Heck adds a layer of complexity to Section 1983 claims following a "resisting an officer" conviction. However, understanding its nuances and crafting a careful legal strategy can provide avenues to pursue justice.