Lockett v. Ericson

• Decision Date: 31 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–16609.,09–16609.
• Citation: 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11270,2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13426,656 F.3d 892
• Parties: Edwin Vernon LOCKETT, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Keith ERICSON; City of Mount Shasta Police Department; Robert D. Gibson; Chris Lynch; Dave Mickelson, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

656 F.3d 892

11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,270

2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,426

Edwin Vernon LOCKETT, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Keith ERICSON; City of Mount Shasta Police Department; Robert D. Gibson; Chris Lynch; Dave Mickelson, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 09–16609.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 5, 2010.Submitted Aug. 25, 2011.Filed Aug. 31, 2011.

Tania Beth Rose, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellant Edwin Lockett.William Ayres, Redding, CA, for defendants-appellees City of Mt. Shasta Police Department, Robert Gibson, and Chris Lynch.Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California, Alberto Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for defendant-appellee Keith Ericson.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07–cv–00301–GEB–CMK.Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:

In 2005, officers entered Plaintiff–Appellant Edwin Lockett's (“Lockett”) home without a warrant and obtained evidence that he had driven under the influence of alcohol earlier in the night. The ensuing state prosecution concluded when Lockett pled nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23103.5(a). Believing the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home in 2005, Lockett filed a federal complaint against the officers and the Mount Shasta Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Lockett's § 1983 complaint, concluding that the case was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Lockett appealed the dismissal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, for the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 16, 2005, Lockett attempted to drive home after his birthday party. Lockett did not quite make it: his car slid off the road close to his house and he was unable to get it back on the road. A woman saw Lockett trying to move his car and she asked if he needed help. Lockett declined the woman's help and told her he was alright. Lockett then left his car and walked the remaining short distance to his house.

The Yreka California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) received a call reporting that a car was off the road; the caller said that she had spoken to the driver, that she thought he was drunk, and that he told her that he was not hurt and did not need assistance. When the witness was interviewed again later, she clarified that when she saw the car it was already off the side of the road. CHP Officers Keith Ericson and S.J. Dickson, and Mt. Shasta Police Officers Robert Gibson and Chris Lynch went to the site where Lockett had left his car. These officers found that the car was locked but the right front window was down and there were several valuable items visible inside. The Mt. Shasta Police Department Dispatch told the officers that the car's registered address was a residence approximately one block from where the car was left. Officers Ericson, Lynch, and Gibson (“Officers”) proceeded to the registered address.

At the residence, the Officers found the front door ajar by approximately two inches, and a glass storm door that was closed but unlocked. The Officers recall that they knocked on the storm door for five minutes, identified themselves, and called out for a response. No one inside the residence responded, but the Officers heard several coughs and saw moving shadows inside. Officer Ericson called CHP Dispatch and requested assistance from Sergeant Mickelson, who arrived at the residence a short time later.

After discussing the circumstances, Officers Ericson and Mickelson decided to enter the residence: they continued to announce themselves and requested a response from the occupant as they entered. Officer Mickelson found Lockett in bed and began to question him. Lockett said that he did not require medical attention and that he did not answer the door because he was asleep. Officer Ericson said that Lockett could not have been asleep for very long because he had just crashed his car nearby; Lockett responded “I didn't crash, I just got stuck.” The Officers asked Lockett to remove the blankets covering him, which revealed that he was fully dressed and also revealed a strong smell of alcohol. The Officers further observed that Lockett's eyes were red and watery. Officer Ericson asked Lockett if he owned the car at issue and he said yes. Officer Ericson also asked whether Lockett had drunk any alcohol since returning home and he responded no. Officer Ericson then requested that Lockett perform field sobriety tests, which Lockett did not successfully complete. At this time, Officer Ericson arrested Lockett for driving while under the influence of alcohol and took him to the Mt. Shasta Area CHP office where he underwent a breathalyser test. The result of the breathalyser was .17/.17.

The county prosecutor filed a misdemeanor complaint against Lockett on March 9, 2005, alleging one count of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(a), and one count of driving at .08 (or above) blood alcohol level in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(b). In the ensuing state court proceeding, Lockett filed a motion to suppress under California Penal Code section 1538.5, arguing that the evidence supporting the State's case against him was seized without a warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the Officers were “reasonable in [their] suspicion of exigent circumstances regarding the well being of [Lockett]” and acted “properly in [their] role as a community caretaker in entering [Lockett's] residence to determine the need for assistance.” The court further found that “[o]nce inside the residence ... the officer[s] made plain sight observations which gave rise to probable cause to arrest [Lockett] for driving under the influence.”

After the trial court denied the motion to suppress as noted above, Lockett entered a plea of nolo contendere to the lesser violation of California Vehicle Code section 23103.5(a), commonly known as a “wet reckless.” Lockett waived his right to appeal any section 1538.5 suppression issues, his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for three years. The Superior Court entered the Order of Informal Probation against Lockett on June 23, 2008.

Lockett filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on February 15, 2007. The court granted Lockett's request to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of his related state prosecution. The court lifted the stay on August 26, 2008, in response to Lockett's report that the state prosecution against him had concluded upon his nolo contendere plea. At a case management conference on October 22, 2008, the district court directed the parties to brief the issue of whether Lockett's claim was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

On May 11, 2009, the assigned Magistrate Judge filed his findings and recommendations. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Heck bar applied to Lockett's civil rights claim and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge explained that Lockett

argued in his motion to suppress that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry into his home. More to the point, [Lockett] argues that there was no valid reason whatsoever to enter the house. The facts outlined in [Lockett's] § 1983 complaint do not indicate that the warrantless search could even arguably have nonetheless been proper due to some independent source or because of inevitable discovery. Further, because there was no trial and [Lockett] waived his right to appeal the conviction, the issue of harmless error could never arise.

The Magistrate Judge also rejected Lockett's argument that his claim fell within an exception to the Heck bar discussed in footnote 7 of that opinion: “[b]ecause the search could not have been otherwise rendered valid (due to, for example, an independent source, inevitable discovery, or harmless error), success on the § 1983 claim could have no other effect than to render the search and subsequent conviction invalid.” Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Lockett's claim be dismissed.

The district court adopted in full the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, and it dismissed the case on June 29, 2009. Lockett now appeals the district court's dismissal. After oral argument, we vacated submission of this case and ordered supplemental briefing from the parties.

We review de novo a district court order dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Snow–Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir.2006).

Discussion

I. The Heck Bar

Lockett argues that the district court dismissed his § 1983 claim based upon an incorrect application of the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We agree. In Heck, the 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 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 determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

512 U.S. at 486–87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (footnote omitted). The...