Arbi Kamali v. Rose Stevens, Ivan Villegas, Jordan Bryan, and Alen Hernandez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01432
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARBI KAMALI, Case No. 1:19-cv-01432-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 13 v. (Doc. No. 70) 14 ROSE STEVENS, IVAN VILLEGAS, JORDAN BRYAN, and ALEN 15 HERNANDEZ,

16 Defendants. 17 18 On July 3, 2025, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 69). The Court 19 has reviewed the docket and pleadings. 20 Plaintiff initially proceeded in this action on his Eighth Amendment excessive use of force 21 and First Amendment retaliation claims against Correctional Officers Rose Stevens, Ivan 22 Villegas, Jordan Bryan, and Alen Hernandez stemming from events that occurred on January 21, 23 2018. (Doc. Nos. 15, 16). On January 24, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the 24 pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) 25 because Plaintiff was found guilty of “Battery Causing Serious Injury” in a prison disciplinary 26 hearing based on the same January 21, 2018 incident and lost 360 days of behavioral credits. 27 (Doc. No. 37; Doc. No. 37-1). On August 9, 2022, the previously assigned magistrate 28 recommended denial of the motion, applying the “break” theory from Hooper v. County of San 1 Diego, 629 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) and finding that Plaintiff’s allegations supported a temporal 2 separation between his initial resistance and the subsequent alleged excessive force after he 3 regained consciousness. (Doc. No. 49 at 12-13). On September 30, 2022, the District Court 4 adopted the magistrate’s recommendations in part and granted in part and denied in part 5 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings after conducting de novo review. (Doc. No. 6 52). Applying Lemos v. County of Sonoma, 40 F.4th 1002 (9th Cir. 2022), the District Court 7 granted Defendants’ motion “as to claims premised upon the initial altercation,” and that 8 “Plaintiffs claims may proceed only as to the ‘post-break’ conduct” because any claim based 9 upon Defendants’ alleged acts or misconduct against Defendants Villegas and Solis1 prior to 10 Plaintiff regaining consciousness in handcuffs “are barred by Heck.” (Doc. No. 52 at 7-8). Thus, 11 this case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims and Eighth Amendment 12 excessive force clams against Defendant Jordan Bryan, Alen Hernandez and R. Stevens based 13 solely on alleged “post-break” conduct occurring after Plaintiff regained consciousness while 14 restrained. 15 On April 17, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 58, 16 “MSJ”). In response, on May 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants’ Statement of 17 Undisputed Facts. On May 22, 2023, Defendants filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 61). Defendants’ MSJ 18 is ripe and deemed submitted on the record before the court. Local Rule 230(l). 19 On May 6, 2025, prior to transfer of this action to the undesigned, the previous magistrate 20 judge directed the parties to advise the court of their interest in participating in a settlement 21 conference. (Doc. No. 65). On May 12, 2025, Defendants opted out of a settlement conference. 22 (Doc. No. 66). Plaintiff expressed an interest in participating in a settlement conference. (Doc. 23 Nos. 67, 68). 24 On July 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pleading requesting a date for a settlement conference. 25 (Doc. No. 70). A settlement conferences is voluntary and can only be fruitful when both sides are 26

27 1 Notably, Solis was not named as a Defendant. Instead, Plaintiff’s initial altercation named Villegas and Stevens as Defendants. And it was Defendant Stevens, not Villegas who sustained a broken wrist in the 28 initial altercation. (See Doc. No. 52 at 5:16-23, 6:18-21). 1 | open to settlement discussions. The purpose of Rule 16(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 2 | Procedure, which authorizes settlement conferences is not “to impose settlement negotiations on 3 | unwilling litigants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Committee’s Notes. Because Defendants opted 4 | outa settlement conference, the Court will not set a settlement conference in this case at this time. 5 | Instead, the undersigned has taken Defendants’ MSJ under submission and will issue Findings 6 | and Recommendations regarding the same in due course. 7 ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED: 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. No. 70) is DENIED. 9 Dated: _ September 11, 2025 Mihaw. □□□ foareh Yack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28