LINCOLN FINLEY, JR. V. JAMES FISCHER, No. 16-15073 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LINCOLN D. FINLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15073 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00913-HSG v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES FISCHER, Officer APD; MICHAEL AGOSTA, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Lincoln D. Finley, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims pertaining to his arrest and prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal * 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). under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Finley’s claims alleging a false arrest and detention without probable cause as Heck-barred because success on Finley’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Finley failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). We treat the dismissal of these claims as being without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice). Finley’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15073

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.