Jones-Heim v. Reed

Ninth Circuit

Jones-Heim v. Reed

61 F. App'x 444

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2003

DocketNo. 02-15233; D.C. No. CV-99-05098-PJH

StatusPublished

This text of 61 F. App'x 444 (Jones-Heim v. Reed) 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

Jones-Heim v. Reed, 61 F. App'x 444 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Dyan Jones-Heim appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993), and we reverse and remand.

The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion because Jones-Heim’s claim that she lost good-time credits was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), unta she proved that her conviction or sentence had been invalidated. This court has since held that a section 1983 action may be maintained where a habeas petition would be dismissed as moot because a prisoner has completed his sentence. See Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998)). That is the situation here. Jones-Heim has been released from prison and any habeas action she files would be dismissed as moot. Id. The intervening decision in Nonnette therefore appears to justify reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(6).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Dyan Jones-Heim appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993), and we reverse and remand.

The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion because Jones-Heim’s claim that she lost good-time credits was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), unta she proved that her conviction or sentence had been invalidated. This court has since held that a section 1983 action may be maintained where a habeas petition would be dismissed as moot because a prisoner has completed his sentence. See Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998)). That is the situation here. Jones-Heim has been released from prison and any habeas action she files would be dismissed as moot. Id. The intervening decision in Nonnette therefore appears to justify reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(6).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. App'x 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-heim-v-reed-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack