Masa Nathaniel Warden v. B. Cowan, W. Williams, and N. Weaver

Summary

These findings and recommendations address plaintiff Masa Nathaniel Warden’s motion for reconsideration of the prior ruling that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force claims against Corporal Will Williams were barred by Heck v. Humphrey. The court analyzes the Ninth Circuit’s decision in King v. Villegas concerning the admissibility of nolo contendere pleas and related factual statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a) in a Heck analysis. The undersigned recommends granting reconsideration, vacating the prior orders, and permitting plaintiff to file a Fourth Amended Complaint reasserting claims against Williams.

Holdings

1. The Ninth Circuit's intervening decision in King v. Villegas clarified the relationship between Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a), nolo contendere pleas, and Heck-bar determinations and provided a proper basis to reconsider the prior nonfinal orders.
2. A court may not consider the plaintiff's nolo contendere plea or facts stipulated as part of that plea to determine whether the plaintiff's § 1983 claim is Heck-barred.
3. The prior orders applying the Heck bar to the claim against Williams should be vacated, and plaintiff should be permitted to file a Fourth Amended Complaint asserting an excessive-force claim based on the alleged first shot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether intervening Ninth Circuit authority in King v. Villegas warranted reconsideration of the prior order applying the Heck bar.
2. Whether a court may consider a plaintiff's nolo contendere plea or facts stipulated as part of the plea in determining whether a related § 1983 excessive-force claim is barred by Heck.
3. Whether plaintiff should be permitted to reassert an excessive-force claim against Williams based on the alleged first shot.

Disposition

other