Green v. Lizarraga et al

1
22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COREY LAVELLE GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
M. LIZARRAGA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP
ORDER (1) ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 	(ECF No. 88). 	Defendants have filed
objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 92). The Court having reviewed the thorough and well-
reasoned R&R, adopts it in its entirety.
Defendants contend that the R&R failed to appropriately apply Heck v. Humphrey
to the facts at hand. 512 U.S. 477 (1994). However, the Court is persuaded by the analysis
in the R&R leading to the conclusion that “the criminal jury did not necessarily make a
finding that any of the defendants currently before this Court acted lawfully.” (ECF No.
88); see King v. R. Villegas, No. 23-1713, 2025 WL 2950508, at *7 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025)
(noting that a prisoner plaintiff’s excessive force action filed prior to criminal charges was
Case 3:22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP Document 103 Filed 10/21/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP
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
not the type of collateral attack contemplated by the Supreme Court in deciding Heck).
Defendants also object to the survival of claims against Sergeant Montejano, who they
argue did not order the excessive force at issue. 	Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Montejano
“ordered [the other officers] to run inside the cell to do that, because he said he did that”
and that “under [Sgt. Montejano’s] orders it was ill intentions that cause [sic] my injuries
by his command to cause me harm.” (ECF Nos. 71-2 at 37, 1 at 2–3) (emphasis added).
Although the Defendants point out what they think “Plaintiff is most likely referring to,”
any ambiguity tends to show a genuine dispute as to a material fact, particularly given the
duty to liberally construe documents filed pro se. (ECF No. 92); Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
For these reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s illegal extraction claim is GRANTED. Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants
Lizarraga, Galindo, and Montejano is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2025
________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-01175-DMS-MMP Document 103 Filed 10/21/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2