Keeper v. Noce

D.C. Circuit

Keeper v. Noce

180 F. App'x 170

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2006

DocketNo. 05-5175

StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. App'x 170 (Keeper v. Noce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keeper v. Noce, 180 F. App'x 170 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 7, 2005, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellant’s claims against the federal magistrates, district judges, and prosecutor are barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Moreover, all of appellant’s damages [171]*171claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment on those claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which has not been invalidated in a prior proceeding. See also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 7, 2005, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined that appellant’s claims against the federal magistrates, district judges, and prosecutor are barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Moreover, all of appellant’s damages [171]*171claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment on those claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, which has not been invalidated in a prior proceeding. See also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 F. App'x 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeper-v-noce-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack