Case: 21-30164 Document: 00516130131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 14, 2021
No. 21-30164
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Michael R. Holmes,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Corbett Reddoch; Ryan Hebert; H. Hardin, also known as
Holly Hardin; C. Lambert, also known as Chris Lambert, also
known as Christopher Lambert; Paul Durnin; Gerald A.
Turlich, Jr., in his official capacity as sheriff of Plaquemines Parish,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CV-12749
Before King, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael R. Holmes was charged with resisting an officer in violation
of Louisiana law. See La. Stat. Ann. § 14:108. In September 2019, the
prosecution informed the state trial court that it had reached an informal
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30164 Document: 00516130131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 21-30164
compromise with Holmes and moved to dismiss the charge. Holmes then
brought this federal suit against officials in the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff’s
Office, alleging that the officers involved in his arrest violated a number of
his civil rights. The district court found that most of Holmes’s claims were
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and granted defendants
summary judgment. 1 Holmes appeals.
Heck bars the litigation of a Section 1983 claim if success on that claim
“would necessarily imply that a prior conviction or sentence is invalid.”
Aucoin v. Cupil, 958 F.3d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 2020). To lift the Heck bar, the
plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the prior criminal proceeding
terminated in his favor. Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe Cnty., 591 F.3d 431, 435
(5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s application of Heck turned largely on a
state court minute entry, which indicated that the criminal charge against
Holmes was dismissed via an “informal diversionary program.” The court
below interpreted this to mean that the criminal charge had been
conditionally dismissed. See Taylor v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453, 456 (5th Cir. 1994)
(per curiam) (holding that pretrial diversion is not a favorable termination);
see also Morris v. Mekdessie, 768 F. App’x 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2019). And while
Holmes argued that he had never participated in a diversionary program or
otherwise agreed to a compromise with the State, the court found that
Holmes had still failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the criminal
proceedings terminated in his favor.
During the pendency of this appeal, Holmes filed a motion to
supplement the record with evidence of a recent state court order quashing
1
The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from the few
federal claims that survived Heck. To the extent Holmes pled any state claims, they were
dismissed without prejudice because the court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
2
Case: 21-30164 Document: 00516130131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 21-30164
his criminal charge. The Louisiana court held that the charge against Holmes
was not properly dismissed in open court and, since the charge was filed over
three years ago, ruled that it should be quashed entirely. The court did not
erase the minute entry, as it merely reflected “what the DA said in court.”
But the court did acknowledge there was no evidence that Holmes had
completed any diversionary program, and that it was unaware of any
Louisiana criminal charge that had been resolved in a similar fashion.
We grant Holmes’s motion to supplement the record. See DM Arbor
Ct., Ltd. v. City of Houston, 988 F.3d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 2021) (taking judicial
notice of relevant public proceedings that occurred after the district court
ruled); see also VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1312–
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (allowing supplementation of the record on appeal
because evidence related to events occurring after, rather than before, the
district court ruling). In light of these state court developments, it is
appropriate to vacate the ruling—which relied heavily on the now-altered
state court record—and remand the case for further consideration. Indeed,
defense counsel forthrightly acknowledged at oral argument that the state
court ruling, if it stands, changes the complexion of the Heck issue.
The qualifier is that defendants intend to appeal the state court order.
That might support staying this appeal pending resolution of the state court
appeal. The district court, however, is in the best position to address in the
first instance the impact of the new state court ruling and whether a stay is
warranted to await the final state court resolution. There is one other
development that could affect the Heck issue. The Supreme Court heard
argument this fall in a case that could clarify the burden a civil rights plaintiff
bears in trying to overcome Heck when it is not clear whether the criminal
case resulted in a favorable termination. See Thompson v. Clark, 794 F. App’x
140, 141 (2d Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 1682 (2021). This additional
moving part on the Heck issue is another reason to remand. And while
3
Case: 21-30164 Document: 00516130131 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/14/2021
No. 21-30164
defendants urge affirmance on the alternative ground that plaintiff cannot
show a violation of clearly established law, much of that analysis could be
influenced by the Heck ruling (such as whether, in assessing the excessive
force claim, we must accept that Holmes resisted the officers, as that was the
basis for the state court prosecution).
***
The motion to supplement the record is GRANTED. We
VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
4
Holmes v. Reddoch
Combined Opinion