J. Wilkerson v. B. Wheeler, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21809

Background

Plaintiff Adonai El‑Shaddai (aka James Wilkerson), an incarcerated prisoner, alleges three correctional officers used excessive force when restraining him in the prison law library after he delayed returning to his cell to retrieve legal documents.
Officers Wheeler and Albonico tackled and restrained him; Sergeant Turner assisted. El‑Shaddai was issued a prison disciplinary citation for resisting an officer and was found guilty; that result was upheld on state habeas review.
El‑Shaddai sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the three officers and the prison librarian. Defendants moved for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds; the magistrate and district court granted summary judgment as to Turner, finding the prison grievance failed to put Turner on notice.
Prior to trial, the court denied appointment of counsel (no volunteer counsel available) and excluded some incarcerated witnesses and documents. The district court instructed the jury that it was established El‑Shaddai resisted and was disciplined for that resistance. The jury found for defendants.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Turner (holding the grievance sufficiently alleged Turner’s conduct), found the jury instruction misleading under Heck/Simpson principles, vacated the judgment as to the other officers, and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether El‑Shaddai exhausted administrative remedies as to Turner	Grievance named Turner as a responding officer and described Turner’s specific conduct; thus it gave adequate notice	Grievance described only Wheeler and Albonico; it did not put Turner on notice to defend	Reversed summary judgment: grievance sufficiently alerted prison to Turner’s alleged conduct and exhausted remedies
Whether Heck v. Humphrey required the court to instruct the jury that El‑Shaddai resisted and was disciplined	Heck does not apply because any disciplinary loss of credits could not extend an indeterminate life sentence; prison discipline did not affect duration of confinement	District court argued Heck barred inconsistent findings and supported instruction to prevent collateral attack on disciplinary decision	Heck did not require the instruction; giving it was unnecessary and misleading
Whether the jury instruction (that resistance was "established") improperly limited plaintiff’s testimony under Simpson v. Thomas	Instruction conflicted with El‑Shaddai’s testimony that he only delayed leaving for legal papers and did not physically resist; Simpson bars using Heck as an evidentiary exclusion	Instruction reflected disciplinary finding and risked informing jury of credibly established resistance	Instruction was misleading and prejudicial; likely affected verdict; reversal and new trial required
Whether denial of appointed counsel or exclusion of witnesses/documents required reversal	Plaintiff argued his incarcerated status and inability to subpoena witnesses justified appointed counsel and admission of evidence	Court found no exceptional circumstances for appointed counsel and excluded certain witnesses/evidence under procedural rules	Court vacated judgment on jury‑instruction grounds and did not reach the counsel/exclusion issues on the merits; those claims left for remand

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (§ 1983 damages claim barred if success would imply invalidity of conviction or sentence)
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (Heck principle applied to prison disciplinary sanctions affecting good‑time credits)
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (Heck does not bar § 1983 claims that would not affect duration of confinement)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (scope of exhaustion defined by prison requirements)
Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2002) (grievance suffices if it alerts prison to nature of wrong; notice‑pleading standard)
Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (grievance need not name responsible parties to exhaust claims)
Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 2008) (Heck is a claims bar, not an evidentiary bar; plaintiffs may testify to the full story when suit won’t impact discipline)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for reviewing exhaustion and factual findings)
Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying Strong standard when grievance rules silent)
Gantt v. City of Los Angeles, 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013) (harmless‑error standard for civil jury instruction errors)