Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne , 586 F. App'x 429 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 08 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LYLE MARK COULTAS, No. 13-35402
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00045-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEVEN PAYNE, individually and in his
official capacity as Oregon State Crime
Laboratory Detective; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 18, 2014***
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former Oregon state prisoner Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations arising from his state court
conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We vacate and remand.
The district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Jackson
v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2014), when it determined that Coultas’s § 1983
claims against the individual defendants, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor, were
Heck-barred. In Jackson v. Barnes, the court held that certain claims were not
Heck-barred because the criminal defendant was reconvicted without use of the
evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. See id. at 759-60.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal of Coultas’s § 1983 claims
against the individual defendants and remand to allow the district court to
reconsider its application of Heck, including whether Coultas’s postconviction
relief invalidated his initial conviction, and whether his claims are inconsistent
with his subsequent guilty plea conviction.
Coultas waived his appeal of his § 1983 claims against the State of Oregon,
the Oregon State Police, and the Yamhill County District Attorney’s Office by not
2 13-35402
presenting any argument or legal authority on them. See Kohler v. Inter-Tel
Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1182 (9th Cir. 2001).
Coultas’s request for oral argument, filed on January 17, 2014, and Coultas’s
motion to take judicial notice, filed on June 2, 2014, are denied as unnecessary.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 13-35402