[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-