Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence Jones appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants used excessive force in arresting him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971 , 978 (9th Cir.1999), and we vacate and remand.

Jones’s complaint, although vague and lacking detail, alleges that defendants used at least some force against Jones after he was constrained by handcuffs. The district court therefore appears to have erred in dismissing Jones’s action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2001) (“Excessive force used after the arrest is made does not destroy the lawfulness of the arrest”). Moreover, it is unclear which events surrounding Jones’s arrest formed the basis for his criminal plea under Cal.Penal Code § 243(b) for battery against an officer performing her duties. *552 See Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 698-99 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); Sanford, 258 F.3d at 1119 (burden is on defendants to establish Heck applies by showing which events…