Defendant's Attorney: Sacramento California civil rights violation claim defense lawyer represented the Defendants.

Description: Sacramento, California civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued the on excessive use of force Eight Amendment Constitutional rights violation theories.

In an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s
false arrest and municipal liability claims, as well as the
district court’s adverse summary judgment on plaintiff’s
excessive force claim, and remanded for further
proceedings.

Plaintiff pled “no contest” or “nolo contendere” to
willfully resisting, obstructing, and delaying a peace officer
in violation of section 148(a)(1) of the California Penal
Code. Although plaintiff entered the equivalent of a guilty
plea, the state court never entered an order finding him guilty
of the charge to which he pleaded. Instead, the court ordered
that its acceptance of plaintiff’s plea would be “held in
abeyance,” pending his completion of ten hours of community service and obedience of all laws. After the six
months of abeyance elapsed, the charges against plaintiff
were “dismissed” in the “interest of justice” on the
prosecutor’s motion.

The district court held that plaintiff’s false arrest and
excessive force claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), which holds that § 1983 claims must
be dismissed if they would “necessarily require the plaintiff
to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction.” Plaintiff’s
municipal liability claims were also rejected as improperly
filed against defendants who were not “persons.”

Outcome: Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: