Arron Thomas Simmons v. Shasta County District Attorney;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARRON THOMAS SIMMONS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHASTA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15697
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00242-KJM-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Arron Thomas Simmons appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
sentence as unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15697
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Simmons’s action because a challenge
to the validity of a state court sentence must be done through habeas corpus, not a
§ 1983 action. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(“[H]abeas corpus is the exclusive remedy to attack the legality of the conviction
or sentence . . . .”). The district court also properly determined that Simmons’s
complaint was not suitable for conversion into a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus because Simmons had not exhausted his state court remedies.
Simmons’s motion for referral (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --