Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Christopher John MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark W. SIAS, Defendant-Appellee

Christopher John MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark W. SIAS, Defendant-Appellee, 88 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1996)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1996-07-03
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • stating that § 1983 and Bivens actions identical except for the requirement of a state actor under § 1983 and federal actor under Bivens
  • holding Heck barred pro se Plaintiff’s claims based on actions Plaintiff’s federal probation officer took allegedly outside of the probation officer’s authority in supervising Plaintiff
  • noting that Bivens is basically a 1983 claim against a federal officer
  • holding “that the rationale of Heck applies to Bivens actions”
  • applying Heck to claims raised 16 in a Bivens action, and holding that “the rationale of Heck applies to Bivens actions”
  • extending the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey to federal civil rights claims
  • noting how Bivens is 2 basically a § 1983 claim against federal officers
  • noting how Bivens is 1 basically a 1983 claim against federal officers

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Christopher John MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark W. SIAS, Defendant-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
96 opinions
MARTIN v. SIAS,88 F.3d 774(9th Cir. 1996)
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARK W. SIAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-36118
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 25, 1996fn*
Filed July 3, 1996
Christopher John Martin, Sheridan, Oregon, for plaintiff-appellant.Page 775

No appearance for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Barbara J. Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding.

D.C. No. CV-95-00763-BJR.
Before: John T. Noonan, Jr., Edward Leavy, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.
[1] Federal prisoner Christopher John Martin appeals pro se the district court's dismissal, pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), of his Bivens1action for damages alleging that United States Probation Officer Mark W. Sias acted outside his authority in supervising Martin's parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

[2] We review a district court's dismissal pursuant to section 1915(d) for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez,504 U.S. 25,33(1992); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,49 F.3d 583,584(9th Cir. 1995).

[3] If a complaint filed by a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis is frivolous, a federal district court may dismiss the action pursuant to section 1915(d). A complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319,325(1989); Cato v. United States,70 F.3d 1103,1106(9th Cir. 1995).

[4] In Heck v. Humphrey,114 S.Ct. 2364(1994), the Supreme Court held "that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been" previously invalidated. Id. at 2372 (footnote omitted). Although Heck involved a claim under42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Martin brought a Bivens action, this court has stated that "[a]ctions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens." Van Strum v. Lawn,940 F.2d 406,409(9th Cir. 1991).

[5] We join the other federal circuits that have addressed this issue, and hold that the rationale of Heck applies to Bivens actions. Cf. Williams v. Hill,74 F.3d 1339,1340(D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Abella v. Rubino,63 F.3d 1063,1065(11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Tavarez v. Reno,54 F.3d 109,110(2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Stephenson v. Reno,28 F.3d 26,27(5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Accordingly, because a judgment in favor of Martin would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and because Martin did not show that his sentence has been invalidated, the district court properly dismissed this action.

[6] AFFIRMED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. ↩
  2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,403 U.S. 388(1971). ↩