Summary
finding that to the extent that § 1983 claims arising from a traffic citation and subsequent state court proceedings would effectively require reversal of the judgment of the state court, the claims were barred by Heck
Summary of this case from Gittens v. RakowskyOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, James A. Redden, J., dismissed § 1983 action arising from a traffic citation and subsequent state court proceedings, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) to the extent that § 1983 claims arising from a traffic citation and subsequent state court proceedings would effectively require reversal of the judgment of state court, the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, and (2) state police officer's testimony about the circumstances of plaintiff's traffic stop was privileged because that testimony was relevant to the state court's determination of whether plaintiff committed a traffic infraction.
Affirmed.
Page 256.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon James A. Redden, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Barbara and Ted Dauven appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a traffic citation and subsequent state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal, see Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Dismissal was proper because, to the extent the Dauvens' claims would effectively require reversal of the judgment of the Washington County Justice Court, the claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
The district court properly dismissed all claims for tort liability based on the state police officer's testimony about the circumstances of Barbara Dauven's traffic stop because that testimony was relevant to the state court's determination of whether Barbara Dauven committed a traffic infraction and thus the testimony was privileged. See Leveque v. Paulson, 126 Or.App. 12, 867 P.2d 516, 517 (1994) (explaining that the Oregon testimony privilege embraces any statement that may possibly be pertinent to the proceeding in which it is made).
The district court properly found that the Dauvens' claims against the State of Oregon are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974).
The Dauvens' remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.