Summary
denying a motion to dismiss a claim as barred by Heck “without prejudice to its reasserting on summary judgment on a fuller factual record”
Summary of this case from Drumwright v. GomezOpinion
SACV 21-1008-MWF (JEM)
09-13-2022
DEVIN MCLEAN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE 1, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants have filed Objections, and the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Defendants have objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
The objections are OVERRULED. Despite his guilty plea to California Penal Code section 69, Plaintiff's allegations are not barred by Heck. As the magistrate judge explained, Plaintiff's allegations may be viewed as pleading at least one scenario in which the alleged excessive force was distinct from the unstated factual basis for the guilty plea. And taking a generous view of the pro se complaint, as the Court must, it does now allege excessive force against the four named officers and not just other unnamed participants.
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed without leave to amend; (b) the Motion to Dismiss is denied in all other respects; and (2) Defendants shall file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order.