John Thymes v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

John Thymes v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

692 F. App'x 384

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2017

Docket15-16050

StatusUnpublished

This text of 692 F. App'x 384 (John Thymes v. Edmund Brown, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Thymes v. Edmund Brown, Jr., 692 F. App'x 384 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

John A. Thymes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law violations brought in connection with a property Thymes claims to own and his prior criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thymes’ action because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior criminal conviction, and thus his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction has been invalidated).

We reject as unsupported by the record Thymes’ contention that the district court violated his right to due process or erred regarding the default judgments Thymes requested.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Thymes’ pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 51, 52, 53) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

John A. Thymes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law violations brought in connection with a property Thymes claims to own and his prior criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thymes’ action because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior criminal conviction, and thus his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction has been invalidated).

We reject as unsupported by the record Thymes’ contention that the district court violated his right to due process or erred regarding the default judgments Thymes requested.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Thymes’ pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 51, 52, 53) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-thymes-v-edmund-brown-jr-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack