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


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            SEP 25 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROBERT HACKWORTH, Jr.,                           No. 11-17538
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00850-AWI-
    MJS
    v.
    P. RANGEL, Correctional Officer,                 MEMORANDUM *
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 10, 2012 **
    Before:        WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Robert Hackworth 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
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    novo. Bruce 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
    (1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
     (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.
    2                                    11-17538