N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOR GE GALINDO, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF OR

ANGE a nd FER NANDO M ALDONADO,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55792 D.C . No. 8:14-c v-00179-AG-R

NB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 15, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M URPHY, ** Distric t Judge
. Jorge Ga l indo a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e n t dism issa l of



# FIL ED FEB 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy III, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 e xc e ssive forc e c la im and a na logous sta

te la w c la im s a ga inst the C ity of Orange and Offic e r Fe rnando M a ldona d o. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. Unde r the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in He c k v . Humphre

y , a pla intiff c annot
m a inta in a

§ 1983 suit for da

m a ge s if suc c e ss on thec la im would “ ne c e ssa

rily im ply ” the inva lidity

of a re late d prior c rim ina l c onvic t ion. 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Thus, a

c la im is ba rre d unde r He c k

if the pla intiff “ would ha ve to ne gate an e le m e nt of the offe nse of whic h he ha s be e n c o nvic te d,” id. at 486 n.6, or make spe c ific fa c tua l a lle gations inc onsiste nt with his c rim ina l c onvic tion, C unningham
v . Gate s , 312 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2002). C a lifornia re c ogniz e s a

sim ila r doc trine , and “ [t] he C a l i fornia Supre m e C ourt ha s not distinguishe d be twe e n the
a pplic a tion of He c k to § 1983 [e xc e ssive forc e ] c la im s a nd the a pplic ation of
ana logous C a lifornia

la w to sta te -law c la i m s.” Hoope r v . C ty . of San Die

go , 629 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting Yount v . C ity of Sac rame nto , 183 P.3d 471, 484 (C a l. 2008)). Ga lindo’ s suit is ba

rre d for two re a sons. First, to preva il on his § 1983 c la im , Ga lindo m

ust ne gate an e le m e nt of his C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 148(a)(1)
c onvic tion. For a

va lid se c tion 148(a)(1) c o nvic tion, “ the de fe n da nt m u st ha ve re siste d, de la

y e d, or obstruc te d a

polic e offic e r in the la

wful e xe rc ise of” the
2offic e r’ s dutie s . Hoope r , 629 F.3d a t 1130 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks, c ita

tion, a nd
a lte ra tions omi tte d). “ The la wfulne ss of the offic e r’ s c onduc t is a n e sse ntia l
e le m e nt of the offe nse unde r se c tion 148(a)(1).” Id. The a c tions to which Ga lindo ple a de d guilty unde r se c t ion 148(a )(1) oc c urre d at the sa m e tim e Offic e r M a l dona do a lle ge dly use d e xc e ssive forc e . 1 This c irc um sta nc e m e ans Ga l indo
m ust ne gate an e le m e nt of his c onvic tion— Offic e r M a ldona do’ s la wful e xe rc ise of his dutie s
—

to pre va il on his § 1983 c la i m . Additiona lly , Ga lindo’ s c la im is ba rre d be c a use he ple a d e d spe c ific fa c tua l
a lle gations in his § 1983 c om p la int tha t a re inc o nsiste nt with the

a dm issions supporting his crim ina l c onvic tion. Se e C u nningham , 312 F.3d a

t 1154. Ga lindo
a lle ge s in his c o m

pla i nt tha t he “ wa s not offe ring a

ny re sista n c e ,” “ the re wa s no re a s on for him

to not be a

b le to be fre e from

be ing de ta ine d,” and he “ wa s e nga ge d in la wful a c tivity .” B ut Ga lindo’ s a lle gations dire c tly c ontra dic t his guilty

ple a a dm issions tha

t h e “ re siste d, de la

y e d , [and] obstruc te d Offic e r Fe rnando M a l dona do,” “ re fus[e d] Offic e r M a ldona do’ s c om m ands,” and “ re fus[e d] to show

1 Ga lindo ple a de d guilty

and stipula

t e d to “ re fusing to show [his] ha nds.” W he n Offic e r M a ldona do shot Ga lindo, his ha nds we re not showing. Ga lindo’ s le ft ha nd wa s out of sight a

nd his right ha

nd wa s re a c hing towa

rds his le ft poc k e t. Eve n Ga lindo now a lle ge s in his c om pla int tha t he wa s “ a tte m

pting to provide

his ide n tific a tion . . . whe n” he wa s shot. 3[his] ha

nds de spite num e rous re que sts.” B e c a use Ga lindo e xpre s sly

disc la i m s a c ts to whic h he ple a de d guilty , his c la im ne c e ssa rily fa ils unde r He c k
. AFFIRM E D.

4