Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01516-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTWOINE BEALER,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. BRANNUM et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 94)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS‟

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. No. 48)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 

IN LIMINE

(Doc. No. 59)

Plaintiff Antwoine Bealer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 16, 2015, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and 

recommendations, recommending that defendants‟ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 48) 

and plaintiff‟s motion in limine (Doc. No. 59) be denied. (Doc. No. 94.) On October 16, 2015, 

defendants filed objections to those findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 105.) On October 

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 124 Filed 03/08/16 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

27

28

2

29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply to defendants‟ objections. (Doc. No. 106.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including defendants‟ objections and plaintiff‟s reply to the objections, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

In particular, the court agrees with the magistrate judge‟s conclusion that plaintiff‟s Eighth 

Amendment excessive use of force claims are not barred by the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), because plaintiff‟s claims do not necessarily imply the invalidity of 

plaintiff‟s prison disciplinary conviction for violating § 3005(d)(1) of the California Code of 

Regulations in connection with the incident in question. That provision states, in pertinent part: 

“Inmates shall not willfully commit or assist another person in the commission of an assault or 

battery to any person or persons, nor attempt or threaten the use of force or violence upon another 

person.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3005(d)(1). 

In the instant action, for plaintiff to succeed on his excessive use of force claims, he will 

need to prove that defendants Brannum and Rios unnecessarily and wantonly inflicted pain on 

him while escorting him to his placement in administrative segregation. Whitley v. Albers, 475 

U.S. 312, 320 (1986). Several factors are relevant to determine whether defendants‟ use of force 

violated plaintiff‟s rights under the Eighth Amendment, including (1) the need for force, (2) the 

relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used, (3) the extent of the injury 

inflicted, (4) the extent of the threat the officers reasonably perceived the plaintiff posed to staff 

and inmates, and (5) any efforts to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 321.

Based on the parties‟ contentions, a reasonable factfinder could conclude both that the 

plaintiff‟s conduct violated § 3005(d)(1), and that defendants used excessive force in response to 

plaintiff‟s conduct.1 Such a finding would not necessarily imply the invalidity of plaintiff‟s 

conviction under § 3005(d)(1). See Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 

2002) (noting a § 1983 claim is Heck-barred if “plaintiff could prevail only by negating „an 

 

1

 As noted by the assigned magistrate judge in the findings and recommendations, in this case 

“[t]he factual context in which the force was used is disputed.” (Doc. No. 94 at 11 & 16.)

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 124 Filed 03/08/16 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

27

28

3

element of the offense of which he has been convicted.‟”) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.6). 

Although plaintiff‟s conduct and defendants‟ alleged excessive use of force arise out of the same 

incident, two separate factual predicates exist: the first giving rise to plaintiff‟s disciplinary 

conviction and the second giving rise to defendants‟ potential civil liability. See Hooper v. 

County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Though occurring in one continuous 

chain of events, two isolated factual contexts would exist, the first giving rise to criminal liability 

on the part of the criminal defendant, and the second giving rise to civil liability on the part of the 

arresting officer.”) (quoting Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885, 899 (2008)). 

Thus, plaintiff‟s excessive use of force claims against the named defendants in this action 

are not barred by the favorable termination rule announced in Heck.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 94), filed on September 16, 2015, are 

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 48), filed on April 13, 2015, is 

DENIED; 

3. Plaintiff‟s motion in limine (Doc. No. 59), filed on May 21, 2015, is DENIED; and

4. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01516-DAD-EPG Document 124 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 3