
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2027                                   ROBERT E. JOYCE,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           JAMES E. CRAWFORD, ETC., ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Robert E. Joyce on brief pro se.            _______________            Donald K.  Stern, United States  Attorney, and  Roberta T.  Brown,            ________________                                _________________        Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  on  brief  for  appellees  James        Crawford, James Farmer, Steven Heymann and Janet Reno.            Merita A. Hopkins, Corporation  Counsel, and Susan M. Weise, Chief            _________________                            ______________        of  Litigation, City of Boston  Law Department, on  brief for appellee        Police Officer Coleman.                                 ____________________                                    April 22, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.      Robert  Joyce  appeals  from  the                      ___________            district  court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint            and its dismissal of  his action under Heck v.  Humphrey, 512                                                   ____     ________            U.S.  477 (1994).   After  careful review  of the  record, we            affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons given            by  the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated July            1, 1996, and in its Order dated August 2, 1996, but we modify            the judgment  of  dismissal to  be  without prejudice.    See                                                _______ _________     ___            Guzman-Rivera v.  Rivera-Cruz, 29 F.3d  3, 6 (1st  Cir. 1994)            _____________     ___________            (indicating  that  claims  dismissed  under Heck  are  to  be                                                        ____            dismissed without prejudice for prematurity).                      Affirmed, but the judgment of dismissal is modified                      ___________________________________________________            to be without prejudice.            ________________________                                         -2-
