Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Jerry Lee King’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a) barred admission of King’s nolo contendere plea, related plea-hearing statements, and his resulting conviction when used to show that he committed the underlying charged conduct. Judge Callahan dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation improperly undermined the Heck bar.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a) bars admission of a plaintiff's nolo contendere plea in a § 1983 action when defendants offer the plea to establish that the plaintiff committed the charged conduct and thereby invoke the Heck bar.
- Whether King's § 1983 action was nevertheless barred by Heck if the plea and related evidence were admissible.
Holdings
- Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a) bars admission of a plaintiff's nolo contendere plea, and statements made during the plea proceeding, when offered in a § 1983 case to show that the plaintiff committed the charged crime and to support a Heck bar. The fact that the person who entered the plea is later a civil plaintiff does not remove Rule 410(a)'s protection.
- The district court erred by considering King's nolo contendere plea and statements made during the plea proceeding as evidence that he committed the charged conduct. Because the court did not reach whether the action would otherwise be barred by Heck, the judgment was reversed and the matter remanded.
Key quotations
“We now hold that Rule 410(a) bars admission of a nolo contendere plea to show that a § 1983 plaintiff committed the crimes to which he pleaded nolo contendere.” (11)
“Rule 410 protects the person—the “defendant”—who entered the nolo plea.” (15-16)
“Barring admission of nolo pleas in Heck cases promotes the efficient administration of criminal law and the “disposition of criminal cases by compromise,” one of the underlying purposes of Rule 410.” (19)
Factual background
King, a state prisoner, was involved in a disputed physical altercation with correctional officers R. Villegas and P. Cruz at Kern Valley State Prison. King alleged that the officers used unprovoked excessive force against him, while the officers alleged that King resisted and struck Villegas before they restrained him. After King filed a § 1983 excessive-force action, the State charged him with offenses arising from the incident, and he entered a nolo contendere, People v. West plea to resisting or obstructing an executive officer under California Penal Code § 69. The district court treated the plea and related reports as establishing an inconsistency between King's civil allegations and his conviction and dismissed the action under Heck.
Procedural history
King filed a § 1983 action alleging that correctional officers used excessive force against him. The action was stayed while state criminal charges arising from the same incident were resolved by King's nolo contendere plea to violating California Penal Code § 69. The district court ultimately granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the plea and related factual materials established a Heck bar. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.