Fort Worth Court of Appeals holds trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear civil lawsuit for wrongful arrest/malicious prosecution since Plaintiff was convicted of 1 of 3 indictments
Nathaniel Washington v. City of Arlington Police Department, R. Walsh, Taylor Ferguson, Brian Salvant, and George Mackey 02-17-00337-CV (Tex. App — Fort Worth, Oct. 4, 2018)
This is a civil rights and tort case where the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims.
Washington was arrested on three outstanding warrants for the offenses related to drugs. A jury convicted Washington of one of the drug offenses. The criminal judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. However, prior to the criminal affirmation, Washington filed suit against the police department and the prosecutors. The police department filed a summary judgment motion asserting the criminal conviction precluded Washington from bringing a civil suit. The trial court construed the motion as a plea to the jurisdiction and granted the plea. Washington appealed.
The crux of Washington’s claims against each named defendant is that law enforcement and legal counsel worked in tandem to have Washington falsely arrested and convicted of delivery of cocaine. An inmate plaintiff’s civil-rights or tort claims based on facts that, if true, would undermine the validity of his conviction are not legally cognizable unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). Washington argued the State dismissed two of the three charges and that he is not seeking release from jail, only money. Washington was arrested based on three warrants, one of which led to his conviction. Even assuming the two indictments were dismissed, the dismissals would not qualify as the relief required under Heck because Washington was validly held on the remaining warrant until his conviction. In other words, the facts Washington sought to litigate regarding his civil suit are facts essential to his conviction. No amount of repleading could cure these defects so Washington was not entitled to replead. The court of appeals held the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims. The dismissal was affirmed.
If you would like to read this opinion, click here. Panel consists of Justice Sudderth, Justice Gabriel and Justice Kerr. Memorandum Opinion by Gabriel. The docket page with attorney information can be found here.