Paul Samuel Johnson v. FONG, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FONG, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17896
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-02058-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Paul Samuel Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17896 2
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s claims relating to his
disciplinary hearing and the circumstances surrounding it as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), because Johnson failed to allege that the
results of the disciplinary hearing had been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok,
520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (claims based on allegations that necessarily imply the
invalidity of the punishment imposed are not cognizable under § 1983).
The district court erred, however, in dismissing at the screening stage
Johnson’s claim relating to the alleged unlawful conditions of confinement at San
Quentin Security Housing Unit on the ground that Johnson failed to demonstrate
exhaustion of his administrative remedies in his complaint and attachments thereto.
See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007) (holding that failure to exhaust is an
affirmative defense under the Prison Litiagtion Reform Act and that inmates are
not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints). We
therefore vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition.
Johnson shall bear his own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --