Daniel Harvey Riggs v. WILLIAM SANDIE, Acting Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL HARVEY RIGGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM SANDIE, Acting Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16197
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00477-MMD-WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Daniel Harvey Riggs appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising out of state court criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 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
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Riggs’s claims against defendants
Flanagan, Deriso, and Mancuso as barred by judicial immunity. See Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are immune from suit
for acts performed in their official capacities).
The district court properly dismissed as Heck-barred Riggs’s claims based
on double jeopardy, an invalid search that led to his conviction, and the invalidity
of the state statute used to convict him, because success on his claims would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and Riggs failed to show that his
sentence has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (“[If] a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --