established by Heck apply to both those claims”). Like Kyles’s excessive force cause of action, his negligence and assault and battery causes of action do not necessarily arise from the same “factual context” as his conviction under California Penal Code section 148(a)(1). See Hooper, 629 F.3d at 1134. For this reason, they do not threaten the validity of that conviction and are not barred- under the California analog to Heck analysis. 3. Merits Defendants argue-that the state law tort claims fail on their merits because the force used by the officers against Kyles was reasonable as a matter of law. Mot. 25; Reply 11. This argument fails for the same reason it fails as applied to Kyles’s -excessive force claims. Young v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156, 1170 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Ransweiler, 171 Cal.App.4th 516,
holding that the record here fails to establish the first two elements which the court identified as the duty of care and a breach of that duty and as a result a directed verdict  on the issue of liability was warranted holding that discretionary immunity does not apply where plaintiff alleged facts that if true constituted a breach of states duty of reasonable care holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that the fourth amendment violation alleged by plaintiff also suffices to establish the breach of a duty of care under california law