Joyce v. Crawford

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-2027 ROBERT E. JOYCE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JAMES E. CRAWFORD, ETC., ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Robert E. Joyce on brief pro se. _______________ Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Roberta T. Brown, ________________ _________________ Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees James Crawford, James Farmer, Steven Heymann and Janet Reno. Merita A. Hopkins, Corporation Counsel, and Susan M. Weise, Chief _________________ ______________ of Litigation, City of Boston Law Department, on brief for appellee Police Officer Coleman. ____________________ April 22, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Robert Joyce appeals from the ___________ district court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint and its dismissal of his action under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 ____ ________ U.S. 477 (1994). After careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated July 1, 1996, and in its Order dated August 2, 1996, but we modify the judgment of dismissal to be without prejudice. See _______ _________ ___ Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz, 29 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1994) _____________ ___________ (indicating that claims dismissed under Heck are to be ____ dismissed without prejudice for prematurity). Affirmed, but the judgment of dismissal is modified ___________________________________________________ to be without prejudice. ________________________ -2-