Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
22-15126•Rosendo Bueno v. CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden
22-15126Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit26.01.2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSENDO BUENO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden; T.
JACKSON, Associate Warden; R.
VELASCO, Lieutenant and Senior Hearing
Officer; A. MARTINEZ, Lieutenant &
Senior Hearing Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15126
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01522-DAD-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rosendo Bueno appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
* 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
JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-15126
violations arising out of two disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bueno’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Bueno challenged the disciplinary
charges and the resulting loss of good-time credits, but he failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that the disciplinary charges, including the loss of good-time
credits, had been invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005)
(“[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or
duration of his confinement,” but “must [instead] seek federal habeas corpus
relief[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable
under § 1983).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.