Background
Joseph Martin McGhee, proceeding pro se, appealed from a district court judgment dismissing his action under Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three and Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-five of Title forty-two of the United States Code. The lawsuit alleged federal and state law claims pertaining to his arrest and prosecution. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey and denied a motion to amend the complaint as moot.
The court’s reasoning
The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twelve comma six. The court affirmed because the district court properly dismissed the claims as Heck-barred. Success on these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of McGhee’s conviction, and he has not demonstrated that his conviction has been invalidated. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint. The panel declined to address qualified immunity issues raised in the opening brief that were outside the scope of the district court’s judgment.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the strict application of the Heck bar in the Ninth Circuit, preventing civil rights plaintiffs from suing over police conduct or prosecution unless they first overturn their criminal convictions through direct appeal or habeas corpus.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download