ROBERT HACKWORTH, Jr. v. P. RANGEL, Correctional Officer

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT HACKWORTH, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
P. RANGEL, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-17538
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00850-AWI-
MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert Hackworth Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17538 2
novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We vacate and remand.
The district court granted summary judgment on Hackworth’s excessive
force claim on the basis that it was barred under Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641
(1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). However, success on the
merits of Hackworth’s excessive force claim does not necessarily imply the
invalidity of his of rule-violation conviction. See, e.g., Smith v. City of Hemet, 394
F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (§ 1983 action was not barred by Heck
because “the excessive force may have been employed against [plaintiff]
subsequent to the time he engaged in the conduct that constituted the basis for his
conviction”). Furthermore, the rule established in Heck is not an evidentiary
doctrine and, therefore, cannot bar evidence in a § 1983 action. See Simpson v.
Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 696 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district
court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --