NANCY GEIGER V. CITY OF CHINO, No. 14-56865 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NANCY JANE GEIGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-56865 D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02086-UA-AGR v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF CHINO, a municipal entity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Nancy Jane Geiger appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that Geiger’s action is barred by Heck v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2012), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that Geiger’s action is Heck-barred because success on her claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of her infraction conviction, and she failed to allege that her conviction had been invalidated. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction has been invalidated); see also Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1190-92 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding plaintiff’s claims were Heck-barred where they necessarily called into question his infraction conviction and he failed to challenge the conviction prior to filing the § 1983 suit). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Geiger leave to proceed IFP. See O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617. AFFIRMED. 2 14-56865
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
