Nina Alley v. County of Pima, et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nina Alley,
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Pima, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-15-00152-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative
Reconsideration re: Compensatory Damages. (Doc. 1222.) Plaintiff seeks clarification or
reconsideration of a portion of the Court’s March 31, 2026 Order in which the Court found
that Plaintiff will be limited to seeking nominal damages at trial due to a failure to disclose
and identify compensatory damages that can be disentangled from incarceration-based
damages. (Id.; see also Doc. 1218 at 9.)1 Plaintiff argues that the Court’s Order fails to
address the Ninth Circuit’s interlocutory ruling in this action. (Doc. 1222 at 2-6.) In that
interlocutory ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), from challenging Louis Taylor’s 1972 “conviction or resulting
sentence,” because the 1972 conviction was vacated by the state court in 2013. Taylor v.
Cnty. of Pima, 913 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2019).
The Court clarifies that based on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, Heck poses no bar to
Plaintiff challenging the validity of his 1972 conviction and resulting sentence, so long as
1 All record citations herein refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s electronic
filing system.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1244 Filed 06/29/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff does not seek incarceration-based damages. At trial, Plaintiff will be free to
present to the jury his theory that the alleged constitutional violations at issue in this case
resulted in an invalid jury verdict and an invalid life sentence. Furthermore, as this Court
has recognized, although “the jury need not “definitively determine whether Taylor is
guilty or innocent, or whether the Pioneer Hotel fire was or was not arson, in order to
resolve the claims at issue in this lawsuit . . . Taylor’s protestations of innocence may . . .
be relevant to his damages.” (Doc. 869 at 28.) Because Taylor’s 1972 conviction has been
vacated, and his 2013 conviction was based on a no-contest plea, the 2013 judgment would
not necessarily be undermined by Taylor’s protestations of innocence or by success on his
theory that the 1972 conviction and sentence were invalid.
In his Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues
that he has made extensive, adequate, and timely disclosures of compensatory damages
related to his 1972 trial and conviction, and unrelated to his incarceration. (Doc. 1222 at
7-14.) In light of the above clarification regarding the scope of the Heck bar, the Court will
require Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s
March 31, 2026 Order limiting Plaintiff to nominal damages on the grounds that he failed
to disclose compensatory damages that can be disentangled from incarceration-based
damages.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1244 Filed 06/29/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative
Reconsideration re: Compensatory Damages (Doc. 1222) is partially granted and
partially taken under advisement. The Motion is granted to the extent the Court provides
clarification herein regarding the scope of the Heck bar in this case. The Motion is taken
under advisement to the extent it seeks reconsideration of the Court’s in limine ruling
regarding compensatory damages. Within ten (10) days of the date this Order is filed,
Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 1222), as set forth
above. No reply will be permitted absent further leave of Court.
Dated this 26th day of June, 2026.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1244 Filed 06/29/26 Page 3 of 3