Robert Hackworth, Jr. v. P. Rangel

Ninth Circuit

Robert Hackworth, Jr. v. P. Rangel

482 F. App'x 299

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 2012

Docket11-17538

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 482 F. App'x 299 (Robert Hackworth, Jr. v. P. Rangel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Hackworth, Jr. v. P. Rangel, 482 F. App'x 299 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert Hack-worth Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brace v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003). We vacate and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment on Hackworth’s excessive force claim on the basis that it was barred under Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, success on the merits of Hackworth’s excessive force claim does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his of rule-violation conviction. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (§ 1983 action was not barred by Heck because “the excessive force may have been employed against [plaintiff] subsequent to the time he engaged in the conduct that constituted the basis for his conviction”). Furthermore, the rule established in Heck is not an evidentiary doctrine and, therefore, cannot bar evidence in a § 1983 action. See Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 696 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert Hack-worth Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brace v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003). We vacate and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment on Hackworth’s excessive force claim on the basis that it was barred under Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, success on the merits of Hackworth’s excessive force claim does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his of rule-violation conviction. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (§ 1983 action was not barred by Heck because “the excessive force may have been employed against [plaintiff] subsequent to the time he engaged in the conduct that constituted the basis for his conviction”). Furthermore, the rule established in Heck is not an evidentiary doctrine and, therefore, cannot bar evidence in a § 1983 action. See Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 696 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 F. App'x 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-hackworth-jr-v-p-rangel-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack