Stanley Rimer v. Brian Sandoval
692 F. App'x 879
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Stanley Rimer, a Nevada state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 relating to parole proceedings for himself and his wife.
- The district court dismissed Rimer’s complaint and denied reconsideration; Rimer appealed.
- Rimer alleged claims challenging the denial of his parole and alleging defendants refused to allow contact with his wife.
- The district court dismissed the parole-related claims with prejudice and did not address some association/contact allegations.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Heck barred Rimer’s § 1983 claims and whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rimer may pursue § 1983 claims challenging parole denial | Rimer contended the procedures and denial violated his rights | Defendants argued such claims attack the fact/duration of confinement and are barred by Heck | Heck bars § 1983 challenges to parole denial; those claims were properly dismissed but should be dismissed without prejudice (can be raised in habeas) |
| Whether district court should have granted leave to amend parole claims | Rimer sought amendment to cure defects | Defendants opposed amendment as futile | Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile for § 1983 relief |
| Whether claims about denial of contact/association were considered | Rimer alleged infringement of his associative/family rights by refusing contact with his wife | Defendants did not get the district court to adjudicate these allegations | Ninth Circuit vacated dismissal in part and remanded for district court to consider contact/association claims and whether to allow amendment |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motions for reconsideration/relevant extensions | Rimer argued grounds for relief and for an extension to file reconsideration | District court found no basis for relief and denied motions | Denial of reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion; extension challenge rendered moot by treatment of orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissal)
- Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir.) (Heck-related dismissal review)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 cannot challenge fact/duration of confinement)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (limits on § 1983 to challenge parole eligibility/duration)
- Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir.) (procedural parole challenges implicate confinement validity)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir.) (denial of leave to amend where amendment would be futile)
- Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 (9th Cir.) (claims suitable for habeas must be dismissed without prejudice)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (freedom of association is limited but not extinguished by incarceration)
- Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987) (First Amendment protects deep personal relationships)
- Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir.) (pro se plaintiffs must be given notice/opportunity to amend)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir.) (standard for reconsideration)