Trial News

Four former prisoners whose convictions were vacated under a settlement agreement after another man confessed to the crime may bring §1983 claims against the city of Fairbanks, Alaska, the Ninth Circuit held. The decision confirms that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey, §1983 claims are barred only when a conviction stands or there are outstanding charges against the plaintiff. (512 U.S. 477 (1994).) A vacatur, a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit said, is sufficient to overcome the Heck bar and allow the plaintiffs to pursue their claims. (Roberts v. City of Fairbanks, 2020 WL 356959 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2020).)

Marvin Roberts, Eugene Vent, Kevin Pease, and George Frese—three Alaska Natives and one Native American—were convicted of the 1997 beating and murder of a white teen, John Hartman, in Fairbanks. Known as the Fairbanks Four, the men were each sentenced to more than 30 years in prison and began serving their terms. However, they continued to deny culpability for the attack and maintained that the Fairbanks Police Department had coerced and fabricated false confessions and fabricated a false witness statement. At the time of the attack, the men alleged that racial tensions between the Fairbanks Police Department and the Alaska Native community in Fairbanks were high. Although the city’s population comprised just 12% Alaska Natives, that group constituted 44% of the inmate population at the Fairbanks Correctional Center.

Years later, another man, William Holmes, confessed to committing the murder with his friends. As a result, in 2013, the Alaska Innocence Project filed a post-conviction relief lawsuit, and the Alaska Department of Law ordered an independent review. After the state court held a five-week evidentiary hearing that concluded in November 2015, the judge informed the parties that he would render a decision in six to eight months. But the next month, prosecutors offered to vacate the convictions and dismiss the charges. The settlement agreement, however, required the men to release the city and state from any liability related to the convictions. By that time, the Fairbanks Four had spent 18 years in prison. Hoping to be released before the Christmas holidays, the men agreed to the settlement terms.

After their release, they sued the city of Fairbanks in federal court, asserting several §1983 claims, including deprivation of liberty, malicious prosecution, Brady violations, supervisor liability, and civil rights conspiracy. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state plausible claims, or alternatively, for failure to join the state of Alaska as an indispensable party.

The defendants argued the men’s claims were barred because their convictions had not been invalidated. The defendants cited Heck, which held that because a judgment in favor of a state prisoner seeking damages under §1983 “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction of sentence. . . [a] complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction of sentence has already been invalidated.” The men countered that the settlement agreement had effectively invalidated their convictions and that they were not subject to a Heck bar. The district court disagreed, finding that “their convictions have been vacated . . . [but] that is not the same thing [as invalidation] for the purposes of Heck.”

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered whether a vacatur invalidates a conviction for the purposes of §1983. The Ninth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court’s reasoning for its decision in Heck was to ensure finality and consistency with state court actions. According to Heck, “[i]f the district court determines that the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed.” The Ninth Circuit said that the “plain language” of Heck requires an outstanding conviction for a §1983 suit to be barred. But the court noted the four exceptions to a Heck bar: The conviction is “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state court, or called into question by a deferral court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Here, the court said, the Fairbanks Four’s settlement falls under the third exception because the settlement essentially was a declaration on invalidity by the state.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the state of Alaska was an indispensable party not properly joined in the lawsuit. Because the city and its employees are the alleged perpetrators of the §1983 violations, the court said, the plaintiffs can obtain complete relief without joinder of the state. In addition, the court found insufficient evidence was presented to determine whether the plaintiffs voluntarily entered the settlement agreement, signed just before Christmas, which contained a clause releasing the state and city from liability associated with the convictions. The court remanded the case to the district court to hear further evidence as to the enforceability of that release clause.

New York City attorney Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, who represented the plaintiffs, said that “the panel’s decision falls neatly in line with the many courts around the country that have held, correctly, that a vacatur invalidates a conviction and lifts the Heck bar to a civil rights suit.” She added that the decision “reaffirms what was already clear from the case law and treatises on this issue. Hopefully the panel’s clear, well-articulated analysis means other deserving wrongly convicted plaintiffs will avoid similar delay in obtaining the compensation they are owed.”

Please set a Datasource.