(PC) Humes v. Spence, 2:17-cv-02617

Plaintiff Jon Humes, a pro se state prisoner, filed a § 1983 civil rights action and later moved to amend after the action was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Nov. 15, 2018) advising denial of amendment; plaintiff filed objections and disputed his custody status (claimed pretrial detainee despite a prior sworn statement of conviction).
The court conducted a de novo review and found plaintiff’s proposed claims precluded either by Younger abstention (for claims attacking the arrest leading to ongoing state prosecution) or by Heck (for claims that would imply invalidity of conviction).
Court determined amendment would be futile as to Detective S. Spence and putative defendant Elliston and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Court denied plaintiff’s motions to amend (ECF Nos. 14, 17, 18, 19) and explained that allegations concerning Elliston belonged in a different pending federal case and, in any event, are barred by Younger or Heck.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court may adjudicate claims attacking arrest that led to ongoing state prosecution	Humes contends his arrest/unlawful detention claims may proceed in federal court	Federal interest yields to state process; federal adjudication would interfere with ongoing state criminal proceeding	Court abstains under Younger (claims dismissed)
Whether § 1983 damages claims that would imply invalidity of conviction are cognizable now	Humes disputes conviction and seeks relief for wrongful custody	Any success would necessarily call conviction into question; such claims are premature absent reversal/expungement	Claims barred by Heck; plaintiff must first invalidate conviction
Whether amendment to add or revive claims against Spence or Elliston should be allowed	Humes seeks leave to amend to pursue these claims	Amendment is futile because Younger or Heck preclude relief	Motion to amend denied as futile
Whether proposed allegations against Elliston were improperly dismissed	Humes argues they should remain in this action	Allegations belong in separate case and are subject to Younger/Heck	Court affirms dismissal and advises proper venue was another pending case

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must abstain to avoid interfering with ongoing state criminal prosecutions)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 damages claim implicating conviction invalidity is barred until conviction is reversed/invalidated)
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (clarifies Heck principle regarding challenges by detainees/prisoners)
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger abstention framework and standards on interference with state proceedings)
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (Younger factors and abstention analysis)
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussion of Younger abstention requirements)