Nancy Jane Geiger v. City of Chino, a municipal entity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY JANE GEIGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHINO, a municipal entity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56865
D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02086-UA-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Nancy Jane Geiger appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo the district court’s conclusion that Geiger’s action is barred by Heck v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-56865
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038,
1041 (9th Cir. 2012), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of
leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990).
We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Geiger’s action is Heck-barred
because success on her claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of her
infraction conviction, and she failed to allege that her conviction had been
invalidated. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007)
(irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily
imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the
conviction has been invalidated); see also Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d
1178, 1190-92 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding plaintiff’s claims were Heck-barred
where they necessarily called into question his infraction conviction and he failed
to challenge the conviction prior to filing the § 1983 suit). Thus, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Geiger leave to proceed IFP. See
O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --