Judicial Estoppel Bars Section 1983 Suit for Wrongful Arrest
In Johnson v. Lindon City Corp., No. 04-4067 (April 25, 2005), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a civil rights complaint due to the plaintiffs' previous factual admission of guilt in the criminal proceeding. The Tenth Circuit determined that judicial estoppel barred the plaintiffs from taking a position in the civil litigation that was contrary to their acceptance of "Pleas in Abeyance" in the Utah criminal proceedings.
A "Plea in Abeyance" allows a criminal defendant to escape a conviction, if he admits guilt and completes a period of probation. In New Mexico, we have deferred sentences, conditional discharges and pre-prosecution probation. All have the advantage of allowing a criminal defendant to escape a legal conviction. However, all require that a defendant factually acknowledge some guilt. The import of the Johnson decision for New Mexico civil rights lawyers is that a client will be bound to his factual agreement of guilt or responsibility even if the criminal charges result, eventually, in a dismissal of the charges.
Heck v. Humphries, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), stands for the broad proposition that an adjudication of guilt will bar a civil rights claim for wrongful arrest when a plaintiff sues upon the same set of facts. In applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the Tenth Circuit has excluded an additional class of potential plaintiffs from filing civil rights suits. The Court described the doctrine as follows:
"[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him." Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895). Although noting that this rule, known as judicial estoppel, is "'probably not reducible to any general formulation of principle,'" New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 (citation omitted), the Court noted several factors which other courts have typically used to determine when to apply judicial estoppel. "First, a party's later position must be 'clearly inconsistent' with its earlier position." Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, the position to be estopped must generally be one of fact rather than of law or legal theory. Lowery v. Stovall, 92 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 1996). Second, "whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create 'the perception that either the first or the second court was misled.'" New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 (citation omitted). The requirement that a previous court has accepted the prior inconsistent factual position "ensures that judicial estoppel is applied in the narrowest of circumstances." Lowery, 92 F.3d at 224. Third, "whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped." New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 751.
The lesson for civil rights plaintiffs is to consult with a civil rights attorney as soon as possible. Kennedy & Oliver does both criminal defense and civil rights. Your freedom is of paramount importance. Thus, your interest in achieving success in the criminal matter is always our primary concern. However, as a general rule, if we cannot be confident of an acquital in a criminal matter, we must acknowledge that there are probably difficulties with any civil rights case. If we are confident of success, we will pursue your criminal defense through trial. An acquital is the surest method of preserving your rights.
Blog looks great except for the typo in "Judcail" You would think they would spell check for you as well for the price!
But is does look great....I typed in search and siezure in google but did not get your blog