From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fottler v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jan 18, 1996
73 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 1996)

Summary

holding that the dismissal of a Section 1983 action because it was not yet cognizable under Heck should be without prejudice

Summary of this case from White v. Gittens

Opinion

No. 95-2083.

Filed January 18, 1996.

Submitted on the briefs:

Fred Fottler, pro se, Boron, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

(D.C. No. CIV 94-1011 LH/LFG)

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.


After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Fred Fottler, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various other statutes. Mr. Fottler proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. He alleged in his complaint that the means used to arrest and convict him were unconstitutional. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because of the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994). Heck establishes that a plaintiff may not use a Section(s) 1983 action to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction if that conviction has not been reversed or otherwise set aside. Id. at 2372. The magistrate judge reasoned that Heck controls, because "Plaintiff has not successfully set aside, or challenged his federal conviction. . . ." R. Vol. I, pt. 2, at 4.

Mr. Fottler moved for a thirty-day extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations. R. Vol. I., pt. 3. The magistrate judge granted Mr. Fottler's motion. R. Vol. I, pt. 7. Mr. Fottler then requested, in a document styled "Objections To Denied Motions", that the court dismiss his action without prejudice, if the court were indeed inclined to dismiss. R. Vol. I, pt. 11. Otherwise, Mr. Fottler did not file any objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's analysis and recommended disposition and dismissed Mr. Fottler's complaint with prejudice.

Failure of a plaintiff to object to a magistrate judge's recommendations results in a waiver of appellate review. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This remains true for pro se litigants if the plaintiff was properly informed of the consequences of his failure to object. Id. We may make an exception to this rule, however, where the interests of justice so require. Id. Here, Mr. Fottler was properly notified in the magistrate judge's recommendations of the consequences of failing to object. R. Vol. I, pt. 2, at 1 n. 1. Mr. Fottler did not object to the dismissal of his action pursuant to Section(s) 1915(d). Thus, he has waived appellate review of this issue. The interests of justice do not require us to make an exception in this case.

Mr. Fottler did object, however, to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Construing a pro se litigant's pleadings liberally, we find that Mr. Fottler's motion entitled "Objections to Denied Motions" properly raised an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice. We conclude that the district court erred when it adopted this recommendation.

When a Section(s) 1983 claim is dismissed under Heck, the dismissal should be without prejudice. See, e.g., Perez v. Sifel, 57 F.3d 503, 505 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th cir. 1995); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995). If Mr. Fottler is later successful in overturning his conviction, he should be allowed to bring his Section(s) 1983 action at that time. Thus, his case should be dismissed without prejudice.

We AFFIRM the district court but REMAND with directions to MODIFY the judgment to reflect that Mr. Fottler's claim is dismissed without prejudice.


Summaries of

Fottler v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jan 18, 1996
73 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 1996)

holding that the dismissal of a Section 1983 action because it was not yet cognizable under Heck should be without prejudice

Summary of this case from White v. Gittens

holding that "[w]hen a § 1983 claim is dismissed under Heck, the dismissal should be without prejudice" because a plaintiff who "is later successful in overturning his conviction, . . . should be allowed to bring his § 1983 action at that time"

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Jaramillo

holding that when a § 1983 claim is dismissed under Heck, the dismissal should be without prejudice

Summary of this case from Albert v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

affirming district court's dismissal of § 1983 claim as barred by Heck

Summary of this case from Dye v. Colo. Dep't of Corr.

affirming application of Heck rule to bar § 1983 action involving a federal conviction

Summary of this case from Bawgus v. Allman

noting that Heck dismissals are without prejudice

Summary of this case from Coulston v. Houtzdale

addressing dismissal as frivolous under prior § 1915(d)

Summary of this case from Padilla v. Enzor

noting that Heck dismissals are without prejudice

Summary of this case from Webster v. Wojtowicz

noting that Heck dismissals are without prejudice

Summary of this case from Webster v. Wojtowicz

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Becker v. N.M. Pub. Defenders Office

noting that dismissal of a § 1983 claim under Heck should be without prejudice so that a plaintiff successful in overturning his conviction may later bring his § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Apodaca v. N.M. Adult Prob. & Parole

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Stone v. Cnty. of Bernalillo

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Adamo v. Romero

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Ziehl v. Counts

noting that a plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Alires v. Santa Rosa Police Dep't

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Bernard v. Sharer

noting that a plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Cunningham v. City of Albuquerque

noting that a plaintiff who overturns a conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Holt v. N.M.C.D. Policy

noting that a plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Gonzales v. City of Albuquerque

noting that a plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Kassabji v. New Mexico

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Upchurch v. Nyce

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Benjamin v. Chellhorn

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring s§ 1983 action

Summary of this case from Bradford v. New Mexico

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Strand v. Narcotics Det. Mack Allingham

noting that plaintiff who overturns conviction may then bring § 1983 action

Summary of this case from Serna v. Kingsley
Case details for

Fottler v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:FRED L. FOTTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GARY L…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jan 18, 1996

Citations

73 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 1996)

Citing Cases

Vidmar v. Lt. Florez, Corr. Corp.

The dismissal will be without prejudice. See Fottler v. United States, 73 F.3d 1064, 1065 (10th Cir. 1996).…

Sutton v. Vanleeuwen

The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff's claims for damages challenging the validity of his criminal case…