UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

PAUL B LUM B ER G, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. B R IAN HEW ITT, B R

AD FOSS, C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-56216 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05072-R -AJW
ORDER

B e fore : M c KEOW

Nand C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd QUIST, Distric t Judge * The Pe tition for Re he aring is DENIED. No future pe titions will be
e nte rta ine d. An Am e nde d M e m orandum Disposition will be

e nte re d. 

# FIL ED

OCT 02 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble Gordon J. Quist, Senior Distric t Judgefor the Unite d Stat e s C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of M i c higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
PAUL B LUM B ER G, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. B R IAN HEW ITT, B R

AD FOSS, C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-56216 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05072-R -AJW
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 6, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

Nand C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd QUIST, Distric t Judge ** Pla intiff, Pa

ul B lum be rg, a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r granting De fe nda nts’ m o tions to dism

iss. B lum be rg ha d be e n c onvic te d in sta te c ourt in a 

# F IL ED OCT 02 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Gordon J. Quist, Senior Distric t Judgefor the Unite d State s C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of M ic h iga n, sitting by

de signa tion.1998 tria l at whic h the individual de fe nda nts in theinsta

nt c a se te stifie d. Afte r
e xha usting sta te re m e die s, B lum

be rg’ s c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e we re ove rturne d on ha be a s re vie w. Blumbe rg v . Garc ia , 687 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1141 (C .D. C a l. 2010). B lum be rg the n file d a

c om pla int unde r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983, a lle ging tha t De fe nda nts viola te d his right to due

proc e ss by

te stify ing fa lse l y

and suppre s sing fa

vora ble
m ate ria l e vide nc e . While his § 1983 c a se wa s pe nding, B lum be rg ple d guilty

to the s am e atte m

p te d m urde r an d , pursua

nt to a ple a a g re e m e nt, wa s se nte nc e d to tim e se rve d. The distric t c ourt dismisse d the c l a im s a s ba rre d by He c k

v . Humphre y , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Blumbe rg v . He w itt , No. C V 10-5072 GAF (AJW x), 2012 WL 12882723 (C .D. C a l. July 26, 2012). W e re ve rse d a nd
re m ande d, dire c t ing thedistric t c ourt to c onside r the c a s e in light of J ac k son v . Barne s , 749 F.3d 755 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd Rosale s -Martine z v . Palme r , 753 F.3d 890 (9th C i r. 2014). B lumbe rg v . He w itt , 599 F. App’ x 715 (9th C i r. 2015). B lum be rg m ove d to a

m e nd his ope rative c om

pla int, whic h ha d

be e n file d be fore he
e nte re d a guilty

ple a . The distric t c ourt, without ruling on the m otion to a m e nd,
a ga in dismi sse d the § 1983 c l a im s a s He c k -barre d. The ke y la ngua ge in H

e c k is: W e hold tha

t , in orde r to re c ove r dam a g e s for a l le ge dly unc onstitutiona

l c onvic tion or im

prisonm e nt, or for othe r harm c a use d by a c tions whose

unla wfulne ss would re nde r a

c onvic tion or se nte nc e inva lid, a § 1983 plaintiff m

ust provetha

t the c onvic tion or se nte nc e ha s be e n re ve rse d on dire c t a ppe a l, e xpunge d by

e xe c utive orde r, 2de c la

re d inva lid by

a sta te tribuna l a

uthoriz e d to m ake suc h de te rm ination, or c a lle d into que s tion by a fe de ra l c ourt’ s issua

nc e of a writ of ha

be a s c orpus, 28 U.S.C . § 2254. A c la im for dam a ge s be aring tha

t re lat ionship to a

c onvic tion or se nte nc e that ha s not be e n so inva lida

te d is not c ogniz a

ble unde r § 1983. Thus, whe n a sta te prisone r se e ks da

m a ge s in a

§ 1983 suit, the

distric t c o urt m

ust c onside r whe the r a

judgm e nt in fa

v or of the pla intiff would ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva lidity

of his c onvic tion or se nte nc e ; if it would, thec om

pla int m ust be dism isse d unle ss the pla intiff c an de m onstra

te tha t the c onvic tion or se nte nc e ha s a lre a dy be e n inva lida te d. B ut if thedistric t

c ourt de t e rm i ne s tha

t the pla intiff’ s a c tion, e ve n if suc c e ssful, will not de m onstra te the inva lidity

of a ny outsta nding c rim ina l judgm e nt a ga inst thepla intiff, thea c tion should be a llowe d

to proc e e d, in thea

bse nc e of som e othe r bar to the suit. 512 U.S. a

t 486–87 (footnote s om itte d). Whe n B lum

be rg’ s ha be a s pe tition wa s gra

nte d , his original c onvic tion wa s
va c ate d. Garc ia , 687 F. Supp. 2d a t 1141. There fore , B lum

be rg’ s § 1983 c la im s do not im plic ate the va l i dity

of tha t c onvic t ion, a s it ha s a lre a dy be e n “ c a lle d into que stion by

a fe de ra l c o urt’ s issua

nc e of a writ of ha

be a s c orpus.” He c k, 512 U.S.
at 487. Re solving whe the r B lum be rg’ s § 1983 c la im s a

re ba rre d by He c k

de pe nds on the inte rpla

y be twe e n thosec la im s a

nd his subse que nt guilty

ple a . Se eJ

ac k son , 749 F.3d a

t 759–60. The distric t c ourt did not addre ss whe the r B lum b e rg’ s § 1983 c l a im s
ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva lidity

of his subse que nt guilty

ple a . Inste a d, the distric t
c ourt sim ply sta te d tha t his c la i m s “ ne c e s sa

rily re quire de m onstra

tion of [B lum be rg’ s] a lle ge d innoc e nc e .” Howe ve r, ne ithe r Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S.

383 (1963), nor N apuev . Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959), re quire s a c tua l innoc e nc e . Se eSoto v . Ry an , 760 F.3d 947, 958 (9th C ir. 2014); Osborne v . Dist. Attorne

y ’s Offic efor the

Third J u dic i al Dist. , 521 F.3d 1118, 1134 (9th C ir. 2008), re v ’d on othe r grounds , 557 U.S. 52 (2009). The distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion by dism i ssing the se c la i m s without the o pportunity

to a m e nd be c a

use , first, B lum

be rg’ s § 1983 c om

pla int wa s file d be fore his guilty ple a

and, se c ond, dismissa l without le ave to a m e nd is ge ne ra lly im prope r unle s s the c om

pla int “ c ould not besa

ve d by am e ndm e nt.” E

m ine n c e C apital, LLC

v . Aspe on, Inc ., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2003). W ithout
c om pa ring a propose d am e nde d c om

pla int a ga inst B lum

be rg’ s subse q

ue nt guilty ple a , we c annot de te rm ine whe the r am e ndm e nt would befutile
. 1 Although wede nie d on a

ppe a l De fe nda

nts’ m otion for judic ia l notic e of
c e rta in doc um e nts, we m ake no c om m e nt on thea

ppropria te ne ss of those doc um e nts to thedistric t

c ourt’ s de c ision on re m a nd. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 At ora l a

rgum e nt, B lum

be rg c onc e de d

tha t he ha d no c om

pe nsatory dam a ge s re c o ve ry ba se d on inc arc e ration to the e xte nt of these nte nc e va lidly im pose d a nd re c e ive d a fte r the 2012 guilty ple a . 4