eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-06

John Thymes v. Edmund Brown, Jr. , 692 F. App'x 384 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN A. THYMES,                                 No. 15-16050
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02377-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Attorney
General, individually and in his official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before:      THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
John A. Thymes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law violations brought in connection with a
property Thymes claims to own and his prior criminal conviction. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians,
    884 F.2d 416
    ,
418 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thymes’ action because success on his
claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior criminal conviction, and
thus his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994). 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Thymes’ contention that the district
court violated his right to due process or erred regarding the default judgments
Thymes requested.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Thymes’ pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 51, 52, 53) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                    15-16050