Opinion ID: 182133
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hooper's Claims under State Law

Text: In addition to her § 1983 claim, Hooper also alleges that the use of the dog constituted excessive force under the California Constitution and California Civil Code § 52.1(b). The California Supreme Court has not distinguished between the application of Heck to § 1983 claims and the application of analogous California law to state-law claims. See Yount, 43 Cal.4th at 902, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 787, 183 P.3d 471 (noting that Heck and California law express similar concerns about judicial economy and the avoidance of conflicting resolutions and applying its § 1983 Heck analysis to a state-law battery claim). The district court held that the California-law analogue to Heck bars Hooper's state-law claims for excessive force. We vacate the decision of the district court on Hooper's state-law claims and remand for reconsideration in light of this opinion. We recognize, in light of the fact that the California Supreme Court did not reach the question of non-deadly force in Yount, the possibility that California law may differ from Heck. On remand, the district court will have an opportunity to decide whether the application of California-law analogues to Heck differs from our application of Heck itself. That question has not been addressed below, and we believe it is better answered in the first instance by the district court.