Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a federal prisoner appealing the dismissal of his Bivens action by the district court, which found the claim barred under the precedent set by Heck v. Humphrey. The appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellant's claim of deprivation of property was deemed untimely due to Nevada's statute of limitations for personal injury claims, as the appellant was aware of the injury over two years before initiating the lawsuit. Additionally, the court did not find it necessary to determine whether the appellant's Fifth Amendment claim was Heck-barred, as the allegations failed to meet the criteria for a viable Bivens claim, which requires a demonstrable injury resulting from government action. The appellate court denied all pending motions and highlighted that its decision is not suitable for publication or as precedent, except as specified by 9th Circuit rules. The dismissal was affirmed, resulting in no favorable outcome for the appellant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bivens Action Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Skinner’s allegations failed to establish a viable claim for relief under Bivens, as the claim did not demonstrate a specific injury caused by government action.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the court indicates that it is unnecessary to determine if Skinner’s Fifth Amendment claim is Heck-barred, as his allegations fail to establish a viable claim for relief under Bivens.
Non-Publication and Precedential Value of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's decision is not suitable for publication or as precedent except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: All pending motions are denied, and the decision is affirmed, with the note that this disposition is not suitable for publication or precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Statute of Limitations in Bivens Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Skinner's claim regarding deprivation of property was dismissed as untimely because he was aware of the injury more than two years before filing the lawsuit, in line with Nevada's statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's decision, noting that Skinner's claim regarding deprivation of property was untimely, as he was aware of the injury more than two years before filing the lawsuit, in accordance with Nevada's statute of limitations for personal injury claims (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e)).