Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06329-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-04-6329 REC SMS

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

AND/OR SUPPLEMENTAL

DECLARATIONS REGARDING HECK

V. HUMPHREY. 

Currently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions

for summary judgment. Each party asks the Court to decide, among

other things, whether Defendants used excessive force against

Plaintiff on July 8, 2004, and July 9, 2004. 

This Court is concerned with whether these claims are barred

by the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). In Humphrey, the

Court placed additional requirements on a prisoner making a claim

under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (“Section 1983”):

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

or for other harm caused by actions whose

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

unlawfulness would render a conviction or

sentence invalid, a § 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for

damages bearing that relationship to a

conviction or sentence that has not been so

invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. 

Id. at 486-87 (footnotes omitted). 

The jury in Plaintiff’s criminal trial found him guilty of

violating California Penal Code section 148(a)(1) on both July 8,

2004, and July 9, 2004. Ratliff Decl. Ex. 2 at 1014:23-1015:3,

1016:2-8. The Ninth Circuit has held that conviction under that

section can invalidate a Section 1983 claim for excessive force

where success “would necessarily imply or demonstrate that the

plaintiff’s earlier conviction was invalid.” Smith v. Hemet, 394

F.3d 689, 699 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court held that an existing

conviction would bar an excessive force claim unless “the use of

excessive force occurred subsequent to the conduct on which his

conviction was based.” Id. at 698 (emphasis in original).

ACCORDINGLY, the parties shall submit supplemental briefs

and/or declarations as to whether Plaintiff’s criminal

convictions bar his excessive force claims under Heck. 

Defendants’ supplemental brief shall be filed by March 17, 2006. 

Any response of Plaintiff shall be filed by March 31, 2006. All

further proceedings will be by order of this Court.

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06329-OWW -SMS Document 42 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3