Weller v. Seeley, 6:15-cv-00073

Plaintiff Shawn Howard Weller, a state prisoner, sued Montana state officials alleging constitutional violations arising from his criminal proceedings and conviction in Lewis and Clark County.
Magistrate Judge John Johnston issued Findings and Recommendations on September 14, 2015, recommending dismissal of Weller's complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
Weller filed a 24-page objection arguing, among other things, that he did not seek money damages but rather transcripts from a 2012 revocation proceeding, and rearguing defects in his original sentence and state-court proceedings.
The district court reviewed Weller’s objections de novo to the extent specific objections were raised, and otherwise for clear error, and concluded Weller largely rehashed prior arguments without targeted objections.
The court concluded that Weller’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, regardless of the form of relief sought.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations in full, dismissed the complaint as frivolous/malicious and for failure to state a claim, denied subsequent motions as moot, certified that appeal would not be taken in good faith, and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Weller's § 1983 claims are barred by Heck because they would imply invalidity of his conviction	Weller contends he seeks transcripts, not money damages, so Heck should not bar his claim	Defendants argue Heck bars suits that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction or sentence irrespective of relief sought	Court held Heck bars the claims; Osborne and Wilkinson establish Heck applies to equitable relief too; objection overruled
Whether magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations should be disturbed	Weller reargues factual and legal defects in his conviction and proceedings before state courts	Magistrate’s findings are legally sound and largely unchallenged in specific terms	Court reviewed for clear error and adopted the Findings and Recommendations in full
Whether complaint should be dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim	Weller asserts constitutional violations warrant relief	Defendants maintain claims lack legal merit and are barred	Court dismissed complaint as frivolous, malicious, and for failure to state a claim
Whether post-F&R motions remain pending after dismissal	Weller filed two additional motions after the F&R	Defendants likely opposed or did not contest mootness given dismissal	Court denied those motions as moot

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1981) (standard for review of magistrate judge findings when no objections are made)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standard for district court review of magistrate judge recommendations)
United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 2000) (definition of clear error)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a § 1983 claim that would imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence is barred)
Osborne v. District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Dist., 423 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005) (Heck applies to injunctive and equitable relief as well as damages)
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (clarifies that § 1983 relief is barred when success would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement or its duration)