Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne

Ninth Circuit

Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne

586 F. App'x 429

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 8, 2014

Docket13-35402

StatusUnpublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 429 (Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne) 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

Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne, 586 F. App'x 429 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Former Oregon state prisoner Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in his 42 *430 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations arising from his state court conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Whitaker v. Garcetti 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). We vacate and remand.

The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755 (9th Cir.2014), when it determined that Coultas’s § 1983 claims against the individual defendants, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor, were Heck-barred. In Jackson v. Barnes, the court held that certain claims were not Heck-barred because the criminal defendant was reconvicted without use of the evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. See id. at 759-60. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Coultas’s § 1983 claims against the individual defendants and remand to allow the district court to reconsider its application of Heck, including whether Coultas’s post-conviction relief invalidated his initial conviction, and whether his claims are inconsistent with his subsequent guilty plea conviction.

Coultas waived his appeal of his § 1983 claims against the State of Oregon, the Oregon State Police, and the Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office by not presenting any argument or legal authority on them. See Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1182 (9th Cir.2001).

Coultas’s request for oral argument, filed on January 17, 2014, and Coultas’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on June 2, 2014, are denied as unnecessary.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

***

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Former Oregon state prisoner Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in his 42 *430 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations arising from his state court conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Whitaker v. Garcetti 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). We vacate and remand.

The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755 (9th Cir.2014), when it determined that Coultas’s § 1983 claims against the individual defendants, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor, were Heck-barred. In Jackson v. Barnes, the court held that certain claims were not Heck-barred because the criminal defendant was reconvicted without use of the evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. See id. at 759-60. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Coultas’s § 1983 claims against the individual defendants and remand to allow the district court to reconsider its application of Heck, including whether Coultas’s post-conviction relief invalidated his initial conviction, and whether his claims are inconsistent with his subsequent guilty plea conviction.

Coultas waived his appeal of his § 1983 claims against the State of Oregon, the Oregon State Police, and the Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office by not presenting any argument or legal authority on them. See Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1182 (9th Cir.2001).

Coultas’s request for oral argument, filed on January 17, 2014, and Coultas’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on June 2, 2014, are denied as unnecessary.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

***

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 F. App'x 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyle-coultas-v-steven-payne-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack