Valentine v. Torres-Quezada

Background

Javontae Valentine sued Andres Camacho, Irene Cervantez, Nicholas Revelez, Miguel Reyes-Diaz, and Alfredo Torres-Quezada, alleging that each defendant used excessive force against him on August 12, 2021. The parties’ accounts of the incident are disputed.

During a 2022 deposition, Valentine testified that he had “latched on” to Torres-Quezada while regaining his balance, denied punching or assaulting any officer, and testified that he gave no resistance while being handcuffed. In 2023, Valentine was charged with felony battery on a non-confined person—Torres-Quezada—by a prisoner. He later entered a no contest plea to one count of violating California Penal Code section 69(a). The court referred to that conviction as the “Conviction.”

Motion to Supplement the Answer

The defendants sought permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) to add an affirmative defense based on Heck v. Humphrey. That rule can prevent a person from pursuing a civil claim when winning the claim would necessarily imply that an existing criminal conviction is invalid.

The court found that the defendants unduly delayed seeking permission. They learned of the conviction in October 2023 but did not fully analyze its legal significance until preparing for trial in July 2024. The court nevertheless found no evidence of bad faith or a delaying motive. It also concluded that the possible prejudice to Valentine did not require denial because the defendants represented that Trial Exhibit 49 was the only evidence they would use concerning the conviction.

The court further found that adding the defense would not be legally or factually futile. The record of the criminal proceeding was limited: Trial Exhibit 49 did not include a plea-hearing transcript or show that Valentine had agreed to specific facts in particular documents. The court noted that the conviction arose from the same incident as Valentine’s excessive-force claim, but said it was possible that the conduct supporting the civil claim could coexist with conduct supporting the conviction. Valentine’s deposition testimony nevertheless supported the defendants’ argument that the defense could apply if the trial evidence presented two accounts that could not both be true.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for leave to supplement their answer. It did not decide at this stage whether the Heck defense would ultimately bar all or part of Valentine’s claim.

Motion in Limine

Valentine moved under Federal Rules of Evidence 402, 403, and 410 to exclude all evidence of the conviction. Rule 410 generally bars use of a no contest plea against the person who made it as evidence that the person committed the charged offense.

The court concluded that, if the defendants rely on the conviction for purposes of the Heck defense, introducing the conviction to the court is permissible. The court reserved ruling on the conviction’s final admissibility pending Valentine’s testimony and the other evidence presented at trial. It also reserved ruling on whether a limiting instruction would be appropriate. The parties agreed that the conviction could not be used to impeach Valentine under Rule 609.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to supplement their answer. It reserved ruling on Valentine’s motion in limine to exclude the conviction and on any limiting instruction. This was a pretrial order; the court did not resolve the underlying excessive-force claim.