JAMES SNYDER V. CLAYTON STEVENS, No. 18-36055 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES F. SNYDER, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-36055 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00352-SU v. MEMORANDUM* CLAYTON STEVENS, Senior Trooper; Oregon State Police, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Patricia Sullivan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted November 18, 2019*** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. James F. Snyder appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). procedural due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm and remand with instructions. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because success on Snyder’s § 1983 claim for monetary damages would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his [prior] conviction” for disorderly conduct and is therefore barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536 (2011) (claims relying on an alleged Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), violation are “outside the province of § 1983” under Heck); Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1192 n.12 (9th Cir. 2015) (Heck bars convictions that were not directly appealed, even where habeas was “effectively unavailable”). In light of the fact that Snyder’s suit is barred by Heck, it was unnecessary for the district court to reach the merits. Dismissal should be without prejudice, however, so that Snyder can “reassert his claims if he ever succeeds in invalidating his conviction.” Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995). We therefore remand with instructions that the district court enter judgment without prejudice. AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions. 2
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.
