Hamett v. City of Broken Arrow – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint under the Heck doctrine and denied the motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
Standard: Heck v. Humphrey bar
Vote: Unanimous panel decision affirming the district court's dismissal.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces the strict application of the Heck bar for federal prisoners and confirms that the three-strikes rule under Section 1915(g) applies to appeals in civil actions, potentially barring future in forma pauperis filings for the litigant.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a federal prisoner. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Heck doctrine because a favorable judgment would imply the invalidity of his underlying criminal conviction.

Background

Randy Alan Hamett filed a pro se action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma alleging malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He sought to proceed in forma pauperis and named the City of Broken Arrow as the defendant. The district court screened the complaint and dismissed it without prejudice, holding that the action was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because Hamett had not invalidated his prior criminal conviction.

The court’s reasoning

The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed. The court explained that under Heck v. Humphrey, a plaintiff seeking damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. The court found that Hamett’s allegations, including claims of spoliation of evidence and a void protective order, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his federal gun and kidnapping convictions. Since those convictions remained valid, the complaint was barred. Additionally, the court found Hamett’s appeal frivolous because he failed to address the Heck bar. The court also noted that Hamett had already received one strike under the three-strikes rule and this case constituted a second strike.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the strict application of the Heck bar for federal prisoners and confirms that the three-strikes rule under Section 1915(g) applies to appeals in civil actions, potentially barring future in forma pauperis filings for the litigant.