Brent William Manny v. Leroy Kirkegard;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENT WILLIAM MANNY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEROY KIRKEGARD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35750
D.C. No. 6:17-cv-00005-DLC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Montana state prisoner Brent William Manny appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising out of his transfer to a prison that did not offer a sex offender
rehabilitation program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
* 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
SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-35750
de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,
1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record,
Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
To the extent that Manny’s action challenges prior parole suitability
decisions or would otherwise necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the duration
of his confinement, the district court properly concluded that the action is barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 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.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] challenge
to the procedures used in the denial of parole necessarily implicates the validity of
the denial of parole, and, therefore, the prisoner’s continuing confinement.”).
To the extent that success on Manny’s due process claim would not
necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, dismissal was proper because
Manny failed to allege facts sufficient to show how his transfer caused an “atypical
and significant hardship on [him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.
215, 225-27 (1976) (no liberty interest in being housed at a particular institution);
Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1989) (no constitutional right to
rehabilitation).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-35750
We reject as without merit Manny’s double jeopardy arguments.
All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 12 and 20) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --