Sanders v. City of Pittsburg, No. 19-16920 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
After being spotted in a stolen car, Sanders fled from the police. He led them on a car chase, then on a foot chase. An officer eventually caught up to Sanders, who continued to struggle. An officer then commanded a police dog to bite Sanders’s leg. Sanders was finally subdued and charged with resisting arrest. Sanders ultimately pled “no contest” and filed a civil rights action alleging the use of the police dog was excessive force.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey, under which a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim must be dismissed if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. While a defendant cannot be convicted of resisting arrest if an officer used excessive force at the time of the acts resulting in the conviction, Sanders could not stipulate to the lawfulness of the dog bite as part of his plea and then use the same act to allege an excessive force claim under section 1983.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint, on the basis of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging police officers used excessive force when they deployed a police dog against plaintiff. After being spotted in a stolen car, plaintiff, Morgan Sanders, fled from the police. He led them on a car chase, a foot chase and then struggled after being tackled. During the scuffle, a police officer commanded a police dog to bite Sanders’s leg and Sanders was finally subdued and charged with, among other counts, resisting arrest under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1), which prohibits resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer during the discharge of his duties. Sanders pleaded no contest to all the charges against him and stipulated that the factual basis for his plea was based on the preliminary hearing transcript. Under Heck, a § 1983 claim must be dismissed if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. The panel first stated that a defendant can’t be convicted under § 148(a)(1) if an officer used excessive force at the time of the acts resulting in the conviction. Consequently, an excessive force claim can’t survive the Heck bar if it’s SANDERS V. CITY OF PITTSBURG 3 predicated on allegedly unlawful actions by the officer at the same time as the plaintiff’s conduct that resulted in his § 148(a)(1) conviction. Moreover, Heck bars any § 1983 claim alleging excessive force based on an act or acts constituting any part of the factual basis of a § 148(a)(1) conviction. The panel noted that the factual basis for Sanders’s plea was based on multiple acts of resisting arrest, including his struggle with officers when the police dog bit him. The panel held that Sanders could not stipulate to the lawfulness of the dog bite as part of his § 148(a)(1) guilty plea and then use the very same act to allege an excessive force claim under § 1983. Success on such a claim would “necessarily imply” that his conviction was invalid. Sanders’s claim was, therefore, barred under Heck.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.