Court Opinion

ID: 9799240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 06:49:32.977934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:48.334518
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiffs Michael Wilson, Sr. and Keis-cha Wilson appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants. We affirm.
The Wilsons challenge the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Defendants based on its conclusion that the Wilsons’ convictions barred their claims for excessive force and for battery based upon Defendants’ actions *486up to the time of their arrests, under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2864, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We agree with the conclusion of the district court. The jury in the state court criminal case was instructed that it could convict the Wilsons of resisting arrest only if it found the police were acting lawfully, and lawful was defined to include the absence of excessive force. The jury convicted and that judgment still stands. This ease is materially the same as Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038 (2012), where the criminal jury convicted after being instructed it could not do so unless the officer acted lawfully and did not use excessive force. We held the civil case was barred by Heck. We must reach the same conclusion here.
The Wilsons also challenge the district court’s instruction to the jury that it was not to consider evidence of excessive force “prior to the time that the officers began the process the handcuffing the Wilsons.” That instruction was consistent with the conclusion that the Wilsons’ claim based on alleged misconduct prior to that time was barred under Heck.
AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.