{"id":6786,"date":"2012-09-14T08:26:42","date_gmt":"2012-03-07T07:59:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-03-07T07:59:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6786","title":{"rendered":"D.C.Cir. &amp; CA9: Two cases on <em>Heck<\/em> bars"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In what is a footnote to the GPS case, Jones\u2019s claim previously barred by <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8197947172835648464&amp;q=heck+v.+humphrey&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Heck<\/a> can conceivably be resurrected by F.R.C.P. 60(b)(5), not by mandamus, but qualified immunity may be a problem [it will]. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\/internet\/opinions.nsf\/E39846E955ACC4C2852579B9005496A1\/$file\/09-5085-1362078.pdf\">In re Jones<\/a>, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 300, 670 F.3d 265 (2012)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Two years after the district court dismissed Jones\u2019 civil case\u00b8 this Court reversed Jones\u2019 conviction. See United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The Supreme Court recently affirmed that ruling. See United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). Because Jones can now show that the dismissal of his civil suit was \u201cbased on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated,\u201d he might consider filing a motion in district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). See Robinson v. Connell, No. 9:05-CV-1428 (GLS\/ATB), 2010 WL 6268444, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2010) (magistrate report and recommendation) (Second Circuit remanded civil claim, which had been dismissed under Heck, to district court to consider motion under Rule 60(b)(5) after criminal sentence was allegedly vacated), on remand from No. 08-1992-pr (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2009). In the alternative, Jones might consider re-filing his complaint. Although Jones expresses concern that re-filing might raise \u201cstatute of limitations issues,\u201d Pet. Br. 13\u201314 n.3, the Supreme Court has implied that, even if Jones\u2019 claims had accrued before the district court dismissed them under Heck, the statutes of limitations should be tolled as long as the bar of <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8197947172835648464&amp;q=heck+v.+humphrey&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Heck<\/a> prevented Jones\u2019 suit from going forward. See <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14604103770101437676&amp;q=wallace+v.+kato&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Wallace v. Kato<\/a>, 549 U.S. 384, 395 n.4 (2007) (\u201cHad petitioner filed suit upon his arrest and had his suit then been dismissed under Heck, the statute of limitations, absent tolling, would have run by the time he obtained reversal of his conviction. If under those circumstances he were not allowed to refile his suit, Heck would produce immunity from \u00a7 1983 liability, a result surely not intended.\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Plaintiff\u2019s claims for the wrongful towing of his car after his arrest were shown to be <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8197947172835648464&amp;q=heck+v.+humphrey&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Heck<\/a> barred. Dismissals for <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8197947172835648464&amp;q=heck+v.+humphrey&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Heck<\/a> bars are without prejudice. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/memoranda\/2012\/03\/06\/10-16861.pdf\">Rowell v. Ewing Bros. Towing Co.<\/a>,  471 Fed. Appx. 597 (9th Cir. 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6786\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6786","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}