Richard Louis Arnold Phillips v. KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, San Quentin State Prison;

18-16790Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit26 set 2019

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD LOUIS ARNOLD PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, San Quentin
State Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16790
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00875-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Richard Louis Arnold Phillips appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
federal claims in connection with his confinement in state prison. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
* 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 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 Phillips’s claim premised on his
allegedly illegal confinement in state prison as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), because success on this claim would necessarily demonstrate the
invalidity of the duration of his confinement. 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)).
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).
Defendants’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied
as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.