William Angelo Latten, Jr. v. J. Benavidez, et al.

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations in an Eastern District of California § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to protect. The magistrate judge recommends denying defendants’ Heck v. Humphrey-based motion to dismiss, concluding that defendants cannot rely on the plaintiff’s no-contest plea and related plea-hearing statements to establish that the claims are Heck-barred under Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a). The court grants defendants’ request for judicial notice of the state-court records and recommends that defendants answer if the findings and recommendations are adopted.

Holdings

1. Judicial notice of the publicly available Solano County Superior Court filings, orders, plea materials, and transcripts was appropriate under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b).
2. Defendants could not rely on plaintiff's no-contest plea or the stipulated factual basis supporting that plea as evidence that his § 1983 claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint should be denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could take judicial notice of publicly available Solano County Superior Court records submitted in support of defendants' motion to dismiss.
2. Whether plaintiff's no-contest plea and the stipulated factual basis for that plea could be used to establish that his § 1983 excessive-force and failure-to-protect claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
3. Whether defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be granted.

Disposition

other