May 20, 2013
NATHANIEL BEEKS, Plaintiff,
OFC. DOLORES TAPIA, Badge #6137, et al., Defendants.
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
This Court's attention has recently been called, via a requested printout reflecting all pending motions in cases assigned to its calendar, that defendants' Fed. R Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Complaint brought against them by Nathaniel Beeks ("Beeks") has not been ruled upon. Both because the defendant officers have filed their Answer to Beeks' Complaint and because the issues can be better addressed on a more informed basis when discovery fleshes out Beeks' original pro se allegations, the motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.
As Beeks' appointed counsel has explained in his March 11 letter response to defendants' motion, the applicability or inapplicability of Heck v. Humphrey principles to Beeks' situation is a nuanced matter on which further factual development will certainly be useful. And that is true as well of defendants' collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) argument.
In sum, as stated at the outset, defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion is denied without prejudice. This should not be misconstrued as an outright rejection of defendants' contentions - this Court's ultimate substantive rulings on the issues remain for the future.