The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-17041•Matthew Ritter v. Mike Marshowski;
12-17041Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 1, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW RITTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MIKE MARSHOWSKI; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17041
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00194-LRH-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Matthew Ritter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28
FILED
AUG 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We reverse and remand.
The district court erred in dismissing Ritter’s action under Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), because Ritter’s action did not “necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction[,]” as Ritter alleged facts showing that
his conviction had been reversed. Id.
Moreover, the district court did not have the benefit of the documents that
Ritter submitted for the first time on appeal relating to whether his action was
barred under Heck or barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we remand
for the district court to review the complaint again and provide leave to amend if
any deficiencies could be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d
1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint
without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
12-17041 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.