NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES F. SNYDER, No. 18-36055
Plaintiff-Appellant, 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