King v. Villegas et al

Filing 112

ORDER allowing parties to submit supplemental briefs within 21-Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/10/2022. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JERRY LEE KING,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
R. VILLEGAS and P. CRUZ,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00676-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ALLOWING PARTIES TO
SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS RE:
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 1016(3)
AND FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE
410(a)(2)

Defendants.

15
16

On May 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing

17

that this action should be dismissed “because Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the favorable

18

termination rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).” (ECF No. 106). On

19

May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 109). On June 3, 2022,

20

Defendants filed their reply. (ECF No. 110).

21

In their motion, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s plea included a stipulation to the

22

factual basis for the charge based on the probable cause statement and reports in discovery.”

23

(ECF No. 106-1, p. 2). Defendants also argue that the facts in the Probable Cause Declaration

24

and reports directly conflict with the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 106-1, p.

25
26
27

6). Thus, they argue, success on Plaintiff’s excessive force claims would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his criminal conviction, and his excessive force claims are barred by the favorable
termination rule. (Id.).

28
1

1

While Defendants cite to California Penal Code § 1016(3), neither they nor Plaintiff

2

address the last sentence, which states, “[i]n cases other than those punishable as felonies, the

3

plea and any admissions required by the court during any inquiry it makes as to the

4

voluntariness of, and factual basis for, the plea may not be used against the defendant as an

5
6
7
8

admission in any civil suit based upon or growing out of the act upon which the criminal
prosecution is based.” Additionally, the parties do not address Federal Rule of Evidence
410(a)(2), which states: “In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible
against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions: … a nolo

9

contendere plea.”
10

Given that Defendants’ motion relies on the facts in the Probable Cause Declaration and

11
12
13
14

reports, the Court will give the parties an opportunity to file a supplemental brief addressing
California Penal Code § 1016(3) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a)(2) as applied to the
favorable termination rule if they so choose.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one days from the date of

15
16

service of this order, each party may submit a supplemental brief addressing California Penal

17

Code § 1016(3) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a)(2) as applied to the favorable termination

18

rule.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 10, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2