Court Opinion

ID: 2964649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:51.807537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:14.833643
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2027

                                   ROBERT E. JOYCE,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           JAMES E. CRAWFORD, ETC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert E. Joyce on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Roberta T.  Brown,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  on  brief  for  appellees  James
        Crawford, James Farmer, Steven Heymann and Janet Reno.
            Merita A. Hopkins, Corporation  Counsel, and Susan M. Weise, Chief
            _________________                            ______________
        of  Litigation, City of Boston  Law Department, on  brief for appellee
        Police Officer Coleman.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 22, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.      Robert  Joyce  appeals  from  the
                      ___________

            district  court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint

            and its dismissal of  his action under Heck v.  Humphrey, 512
                                                   ____     ________

            U.S.  477 (1994).   After  careful review  of the  record, we

            affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons given

            by  the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated July

            1, 1996, and in its Order dated August 2, 1996, but we modify

            the judgment  of  dismissal to  be  without prejudice.    See
                                                _______ _________     ___

            Guzman-Rivera v.  Rivera-Cruz, 29 F.3d  3, 6 (1st  Cir. 1994)
            _____________     ___________

            (indicating  that  claims  dismissed  under Heck  are  to  be
                                                        ____

            dismissed without prejudice for prematurity).

                      Affirmed, but the judgment of dismissal is modified
                      ___________________________________________________

            to be without prejudice.
            ________________________

                                         -2-