Robert L. Backman v. City of Bozeman Police Department, et al. - 42 USC 1983 Complaint Dismissed
Summary
Plaintiff Robert L. Backman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Bozeman Police Department and unnamed officers alleging constitutional rights violations, including claims related to his felony convictions and alleged excessive force during arrest. The Court applied the Heck v. Humphrey bar precluding damages claims tied to uninvalidated convictions, and found Backman's allegation that a gun was pointed at him failed to state a plausible excessive force claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The Amended Complaint was dismissed with the Clerk directed to close the case and assess a § 1915 strike.
“Backman's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court DMT Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 5 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Court dismissed Backman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. His damages claim tied to two uninvalidated felony convictions is barred by Heck v. Humphrey. His excessive force allegation — that Officer MacKinnon aimed a gun during arrest of a man allegedly pointing weapons at drivers — failed to cross from conceivable to plausible under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The Clerk is directed to close the case and certify that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and that the dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
For civil rights practitioners, this case illustrates the stringent application of the Heck bar: a § 1983 plaintiff must obtain invalidation of any underlying conviction before recovering damages for harm caused by the unlawful conduct underlying that conviction. The excessive force ruling also reinforces that a drawn weapon, without additional factual allegations showing unconstitutional conduct, is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard.
Archived snapshot
Apr 25, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Robert L. Backman v. City of Bozeman Police Department, et al.
District Court, D. Montana
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00116
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
ROBERT L. BACKMAN, Cause No. CV 25-116-BU-DWM
Plaintiff,
VS. ORDER
CITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Robert L. Backman filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 2.) The Complaint failed to state a
claim, but Backman was permitted to amend. Backman’s Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is dismissed. (Doc. 8.)
The Court’s prior Order is incorporated here. (Doc. 7.) Backman heeded
much of it, and provided greater detail to elaborate his claims. The gist of
Backman’s claims is that he was convicted of two felonies after an arrest that, he
contends, was not based on sufficient probable cause. (Doc. 8 at 12.) He also
alleges, with far less detail, that he was arrested or charged in violation of his First
Amendment freedom of expression. Id. To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove
that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for
damages related to a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated is not
cognizable under § 1983. /d. at 487. Backman affirmatively states that he has two
convictions on his record for which he seeks monetary damages. This claim is
barred by Heck.
Backman also alleges “Excessive use of lethal force,” but states nothing
more than that Defendant MacKinnon aimed a gun at him during the arrest. (Doc.
8 at 12.) Backman’s claim fails to cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009). Backman’s Amended Complaint does
not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Jgbal, at 678 (quotations omitted). If the factual
allegations, accepted as true, “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—
‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
In the context of the arrest of a man who had allegedly been pointing
weapons at other drivers, a drawn weapon, without more, is not an excessive use of
force. Backman fails to state a claim for excessive force during his arrest.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Backman’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the Court
certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the
dismissal of this Complaint counts as a strike against Backman within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. □
DATED this Moy of March, 2026.
Donald W. M6 District Judge
United Sta t Court
Citations
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court DMT Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from DMT.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court DMT Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.