Foster v. Crosby

Background

Michael Barkarri Foster brought civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees involved in a February 1, 2021 cell extraction at Pelican Bay State Prison. He alleged that officers used excessive force against him, including striking and stabbing him, while removing him from his cell. The defendants presented a different account, stating that Foster resisted orders, approached staff in a fighting position, kicked Officer Crosby, and continued resisting while officers restrained him.

Foster was charged with battery on a peace officer under California prison regulations. He pleaded not guilty, but a hearing officer found him guilty and imposed a loss of 150 days of custody credits. The opinion states that those credits had not been restored. Foster was serving a determinate state-prison sentence, and the court stated that relief on his claims would necessarily affect the length of his sentence.

Legal Standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Heck Bar

The defendants argued that Foster’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Heck generally prevents a state prisoner from pursuing damages claims under § 1983 when success would necessarily imply that an underlying conviction or sentence is invalid, unless that conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question through a qualifying court order.

The court explained that Heck also applies to prison disciplinary findings. It concluded that the hearing officer’s determination that Foster ignored instructions and committed battery on the officers necessarily included a finding that the officers were performing their duties and did not use unlawful force to stop the attack. Because Foster’s excessive-force claims arose from the same continuous incident, success on those claims would necessarily imply that the disciplinary finding was invalid.

Disposition

The court held that Heck barred Foster’s excessive-force claims. It granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Foster’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. The court stated that Foster may refile if the guilty finding is invalidated in one of the ways specified in Heck.