Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051-16/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

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JON A. MESSINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0051 DAD DB P

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants used excessive force against him in violation of his 

rights under the Eighth Amendment during an incident that occurred on January 21, 2018. On 

August 8, 2023, the undersigned recommended that this action proceed to trial. (ECF No. 55.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will vacate the August 8, 2023 findings and 

recommendations and direct the parties to file supplemental briefing.

I. Background

A. Allegations in the Operative Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that on January 21, 2018, correctional officer Mossinger kicked his cell 

door and yelled for him to wake up to take his medication. (ECF No. 14 at 5.) Plaintiff told 

Mossinger he did not need the medication because it was only Tylenol. Plaintiff further alleges 

that Mossinger snuck into the cell, when plaintiff realized Mossinger was in the cell he began to 

panic and blacked out. (Id.) When plaintiff woke up he had been pulled from his bed, dragged to 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 57 Filed 03/27/24 Page 1 of 4
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

the door, and officers Gill and Savage were on top of him strangling him with their radio cords. 

(Id.) He further states that officers Mossinger and Goforth were kicking him in the ribs, offices 

Lewis was hitting him on the side of his head with a metal baton, and officers Andjuo was 

standing on his ankles. (Id.) 

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the original complaint which was docketed on 

January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) The undersigned screened and dismissed the original complaint 

for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 

14.) Upon screening, the undersigned determined the amended complaint stated a cognizable 

excessive force claim against defendants Mossinger, Gill, Savage, Goforth, Lewis, and Andujo. 

(ECF No. 15 at 5.) The undersigned further determined that the complaint did not contain any 

additional cognizable claims. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff was given the option to proceed immediately 

with his excessive force claim or file an amended complaint. (Id. at 5, 7.) Plaintiff elected to 

proceed immediately, voluntarily dismissing all other claims. (ECF No. 16.) 

Defendants were served (ECF No. 22), and this action was referred to the court’s postscreening ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Project (ECF No. 23). Defendants moved to opt 

out of the ADR Project. (ECF No. 24.) The motion was granted, and defendants were directed to 

file an answer. (ECF No. 25.) Defendants filed an answer (ECF No. 27), and the undersigned 

issued a discovery and scheduling order (“DSO”) (ECF No. 28). Pursuant to the deadlines set 

forth in the DSO, discovery was to be completed by July 30, 2021, and dispositive motions were 

to be filed on or before October 22, 2021. (ECF No. 28 at 6.) 

Neither party filed a motion for summary judgment nor requested additional time to file a 

motion for summary judgment before October 22, 2021. Several months after expiration of the 

dispositive motion deadline, the undersigned issued a show cause order directing the parties to 

show cause why this action should not be set for trial. (ECF No. 39.) Defendants filed a response 

requesting additional time to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff’s claim 

is barred by Heck. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the response indicating he was 

opposed to allowing defendants another opportunity to request dismissal. (ECF No. 41.)

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 57 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 4
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

The undersigned denied defendants’ request for additional time to file a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings because they failed to show good cause sufficient to warrant 

modification of the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 42.) However, in light of the issue 

raised in defendants’ response to the show cause order, the undersigned directed the parties to file 

briefing on whether Heck is a jurisdictional bar to adjudication of the merits of plaintiff’s claim. 

(ECF No. 44.) Defendants filed a response addressing the issue. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff filed a 

motion for stay, which was denied. (ECF Nos. 50, 54.) 

On August 8, 2023, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending 

that this action proceed to trial because it determined Heck did not serve as a jurisdictional bar 

and did not necessarily bar plaintiff’s claim in this action. (ECF No. 55.) Defendants filed timely 

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 56.)

II. Recent Ninth Circuit Holding

In the August 8, 2023, findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”), the undersigned noted 

that the Ninth Circuit had not indicated whether Heck is a jurisdictional barrier to adjudication of 

the merits of plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 55 at 5.) The F&Rs further noted that while the First 

and Eleventh Circuits had described Heck as jurisdictional and the Seventh Circuit characterized 

it as an affirmative defense subject to waiver, the Ninth Circuit had not squarely addressed the 

issue. (Id.) Rather, the Ninth Circuit had stated that “compliance with Heck most closely 

resembles the mandatory administrative exhaustion of PLRA claims, which constitutes an

affirmative defense and not a pleading requirement.” (Id.)

On January 11, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 

1000 (2024). Therein, the Court held that Heck is an affirmative defense that can be waived or 

forfeited. Id. at 1006. In Hebrard, the defendant did not raise Heck as a defense. Rather, the 

district court raise Heck sua sponte following oral argument on defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. Id. at 1005. On appeal, plaintiff argued that defendants “failure to raise Heck and the 

‘sheer passage of time’ were sufficient to constitute waiver.” Id. at 1006. The Ninth Circuit 

rejected plaintiff’s argument and determined that defendant’s failure to raise the argument in a 

timely fashion constituted a forfeiture and not a waiver. Id. 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 57 Filed 03/27/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The undersigned previously determined that in light of defendants’ failure to timely raise 

the defense, the Court was not required to dismiss plaintiff’s claim. (ECF No. 55.) However, in 

light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hebrard and specifically its statement that delay in 

asserting the defense did not constitute waiver, the undersigned will vacate the August 8, 2023, 

F&Rs. The parties will be directed to file supplemental briefs on whether this action is barred by 

Heck.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The August 8, 2023 F&Rs (ECF No. 55) are vacated; 

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order defendants shall file supplemental briefing 

on whether this action is Heck barred.

3. Plaintiff’s response if any shall be filed within thirty days of the date of service of 

defendants’ brief.

Dated: March 27, 2024

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/blan0051.Heck

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 57 Filed 03/27/24 Page 4 of 4