Bradford v. Goodwin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff’s excessive force claims “[did] not depend on the invalidity of his assault conviction,” therefore the “claim of excessive force [could] be reconciled with [the assault conviction], and [was] therefore not barred by Heck.”
• reversing the district court’s finding that Section 1983 claims were barred where the excessive force claims were not incompatible with the plaintiff's prior guilty plea to second degree assault against an officer
• reversing district court’s sua sponte dismissal of excessive force claim under Heck on grounds the plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against officers he was convicted of assaulting can be reconciled as the use of force by the officers may still be excessive
• “Shapard’s plausible claim of excessive force can be reconciled with his assault of Officer Attea, and is therefore not barred by Heck.”
• excessive force claims not barred because “the use of force applied by the officers would have been excessive even if [the plaintiff] had” committed the underlying violations
• “Under Heck, a claim that, if successful, would ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of the plaintiff’s prior state conviction is ‘not cognizable under § 1983’ unless that conviction has already been invalidated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).