Nuno v. County of San Bernardino (July 28, 1999)

* Court: Federal District Court

* Jurisdiction: County of San Bernardino

* Trial Court: Against plaintiff

* Issues Section 1983, federal civil rights litigation, Heck doctrine

Nuno Facts

* Nuno, in July 1997, was arrested by a San Bernardino deputy.

* In February 1998, Nuno pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor charges of obstructing a peace officer and carrying a concealed firearm. A third charge of carrying a loaded firearm was dropped as part of a plea bargain.

* Nuno did not try to overturn his conviction.

* In August 1998, Nuno filed a section 1983 lawsuit alleging illegal arrest, excessive force, a conspiracy to issue a criminal complaint against him, and a county policy of inadequate training.

* The county moved to dismiss Nuno's lawsuit; the district court ruled in favor of the county.

Nuno Analysis

* The United States Supreme Court in the 1994 Heck case held that a previously convicted plaintiff could not bring a section 1983 civil rights lawsuit without having first had the conviction reversed or invalidated by a court or expunged by the executive branch.

* Nuno had not had his conviction reversed, invalidated, or expunged.

* The district court held that Nuno's present section 1983 lawsuit is premised on the invalidity of Nuno's earlier conviction but that his earlier conviction had not been overturned. Nuno is therefore out of luck.

* The district court further held that Nuno's nolo plea was enough to trigger Heck.

* The district court further held that the charge that was dismissed as part of the plea bargain did not count as a dismissal or reversal of the charge for Heck purposes.

* The district court further held that Nuno's claim that the criminal charge against him arose from an unlawful conspiracy was barred by Heck.

Conclusion

Federal civil rights litigation is tough, complex, and evolving. The Nuno case illustrates an example of the evolution of a pro-law-enforcement legal doctrine under section 1983 jurisprudence.