obstruct, delay, or resist a police officer in the performance of their duties. Q: Were the officers engaged in the performance of their duties as they were giving command to Mr. Smith to put his hands on his head and step off the porch? A: Yes. Q: Was Mr. Smith’s noncompliance with those commands obstructing or delaying the officers in the performance of their duties? A: Yes. Q':. So based on your training and experience, Mr. Smith — that is, by the time that you’re approaching him on the porch — Mr. Smith had violated Penal Code Section 148. A: Sure. 4 . Additionally, we note that other circuits have held that Heck does not bar § 1983 actions alleging excessive force despite the plaintiff's conviction for resisting arrest. See, e.g., Robinson v. Doe, 272 F.3d 921, 923 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Willingham v. Loughnan, 261 F.3d 1178, 1183
holding on facts similar to this case that when evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment is the only evidence underlying a conviction a successful civil challenge would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction holding that force exerted against an officer after an arrest is complete cannot be used as the basis for prosecuting one for resisting arrest holding that that if the success of a  1983 damages claim brought by a prisoner would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence the prisoner may only bring the claim where the conviction or sentence has been invalidated holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest holding that a finding of excessive force in a  1983 action would not necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiffs conviction for resisting arrest