1. Plaintiff pled no contest to California Penal Code §69 prior to bringing this §1983 action against all three officers who were involved in his arrest. Many federal circuits have adopted a rule which bars a claim under Heck if it is based on specific factual allegations that are inconsistent with the facts upon which his criminal conviction was based. Is a claim cognizable under Heck when Plaintiff would be required to disprove any part of the unqualified factual basis for his conviction in order to succeed in the tort action?

2. Under Heck, can a §1983 action for excessive force be barred against officers who were not named in the criminal charge upon which Plaintiff was convicted, as suggested by Yount v. City of Sacramento, Beets v. County of Los Angeles, and O'Brien v. Town of Bellingham?

3. Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, can a criminal defendant who receives the benefit of a plea agreement assert facts as the plaintiff in a later §1983 action which are in direct conflict with the stipulated factual basis that supports his underlying conviction, without offering any explanation for the inconsistent positions?

4. Did the Ninth Circuit err in denying qualified immunity to the officers when the only material fact disputed by Plaintiff was directly in conflict with the unqualified stipulated factual basis for his underlying criminal plea?

Whether a §1983 claim is barred under Heck when the plaintiff must disprove part of the factual basis for his criminal conviction to succeed