In King v. Villegas, published October 20, 2025, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of a state prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit. The plaintiff was involved in a physical altercation with two corrections officers. His version of events and the officers’ versions were completely different. In the plaintiff’s version, the officers used force on the plaintiff without provocation, while the plaintiff was handcuffed. In the officers’ version, the plaintiff was not restrained, and hit an officer and struggled as the officers subdued him. The prisoner filed his section 1983 lawsuit alleging use of excessive force under the 8th Amendment. After he filed the suit, the county prosecutor brought criminal charges against the plaintiff arising out of the incident. The civil suit was stayed during the criminal proceedings. The plaintiff pleaded nolo contendere to one count of obstructing or resisting an executive officer under California Penal Code section 69. The defendants then moved to dismiss the civil case on the ground that it was now barred by Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that it could consider evidence of the nolo plea, that the versions of the events in the plaintiff’s complaint and a supervising correctional officer’s report could not both be true, and granted the motion under Heck.
The panel majority held that the district court erred. Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a) provides that evidence of a nolo contendere plea is not admissible in a civil or criminal case against the defendant who made the plea. The rule prohibits admission of nolo please and the convictions resulting from them as proof that the pleader actually committed the underlying crimes charged. While prior 9th Circuit authority had applied the Heck bar in cases where the relevant criminal conviction was obtained through a nolo plea, none had considered whether Rule 410 barred the admission of the nolo plea in the first place. The majority held that Rule 410(a) bars admission of a nolo plea to show that a section 1983 plaintiff committed the crimes to which he pleaded nolo contendere. A nolo plea is not an admission of factual guilt. The district court erred in treating the plaintiff’s nolo plea and statements as an admission as to the truth of the contents of the defendants’ reports. Neither the plea nor the statements should have been admitted against him in the civil case. A dissenting judge opined that the ruling “eviscerates the Heck bar.”
Leave a Reply