RICHMOND, Va. (CN) - A Fourth Circuit panel on Tuesday said a North Carolina protester, who argued his stayed conviction should not block his First Amendment case against the sheriff who arrested him, should not have sought declaratory relief from the appeals court.

Maurice Wells Jr. was found guilty of two misdemeanor offenses - failure to disperse and disorderly conduct - in North Carolina District Court after a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest. He has appealed to Superior Court, where his prior conviction is stayed and he is entitled to an entirely new trial, but a new trial has yet to occur.

In 2023, Wells filed suit against Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson, claiming Johnson arrested him over his political views and for using profanity, which he claims is protected speech.

Wells argued that his stayed conviction means it should not be considered probable cause for his arrest and that his First Amendment case should be allowed to continue. Wells claimed Johnson selectively arrested him after he failed to leave a park but did not arrest counterprotesters who also did not cooperate with instructions to leave.

But a Fourth Circuit panel decided Wells lacks standing to seek a declaratory judgment before an appellate court.

"Maurice Wells poses a tricky question," U.S. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said in the 27-page opinion. "He got arrested at a protest in 2020 and was convicted of multiple charges in state court. He appealed the conviction. And now, while the appeal remains pending, he sues to challenge the arrest - claiming that it was retaliation for his speech. His question for us is whether, in this situation, the state-court conviction precludes a federal-court finding that the arrest violated his rights."

But the federal courts are intended to "redress injuries," or provide remedy or compensation, the Donald Trump appointee said, and Wells is seeking a judgment declaring his arrest unconstitutional without saying how it would resolve his arrest or help him in other ways, including warding off future arrest or prosecution. 

The panel vacated the lower court's decision that originally dismissed Wells' case, finding that the federal courts lack jurisdiction. It remanded the case and ordered it back to state court.

Both parties now agree the case doesn't belong in federal court.

"Wells' arrest is a cognizable injury, and Johnson caused it. His prosecution is cognizable, too, assuming that Wells could trace it to Johnson. But to get a declaration that Johnson violated his First Amendment rights, Wells needs something more," Richardson said. "He must show that 'the remedy he sought ... can redress the constitutional violation that [he] alleges occurred.'" 

But Richardson said Wells cannot get constitutionally adequate redress through his request. 

Wells could get redress from prosecution by getting a declaration to fend off being prosecuted in the future. However, Wells has "sued the wrong defendant," Richardson said, because it is North Carolina, not Johnson or Alamance County, that is prosecuting him and would prosecute him again in the future. 

Wells could likewise not get relief through preventing a future arrest over protesting because it would be an "offensive, rather than defensive, use of a declaratory judgment," and Wells has not given the court reason to believe he will protest again in the same place or be arrested again by Johnson. 

Richardson wrote that the redress also cannot address the past injury - Wells' 2020 arrest - as declaratory judgment is "a preclusive weapon that either deters litigation or helps win it." Plaintiffs who have suffered injury need compensation, and a declaratory judgment is not compensatory, he said.  

"Without some unusual situation where the plaintiff can show that he needs the preclusive effect of a declaration even though the injury he complains of has already occurred, a declaration aimed into the past would be only hortatory - a judicial announcement that a past event broke the law - and therefore provide no redress," Richardson said. 

While the Fourth Circuit has never ruled out the possibility that a plaintiff can redress a past injury by seeking a declaration alone, the court has "serious doubts that this works," Richardson said, and the plaintiff would still need to show the preclusion would help redress his injury in future litigation. 

But Wells filed because North Carolina's statute of limitations had almost run out, and as it has expired, he won't be able to bring a new action, and there wouldn't be a preclusive effect from a declaratory judgment, he added. Wells had already waited nearly four years for his Superior Court case to be heard before he filed his First Amendment case. 

Johnson wanted the lower court's decision upheld, saying Wells' convictions invalidate his lawsuit, even if the conviction is later vacated. The fact that Wells was convicted in the state's District Court shows he had probable cause to arrest him, he said. Wells wanted the order reversed and the case remanded so it could continue. 

Wells' claims will likely continue in North Carolina Superior Court.

Legal counsel for Wells and Johnson did not reply to a request for comment. 

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush appointee, and Senior U.S. Circuit Court Judge Henry Floyd, a Barack Obama appointee, also served on the panel and joined Richardson's opinion.

Source: Courthouse News Service