Joyce v. Crawford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 1997
• Docket: 96-2027
• Status: Unpublished

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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-