Johndell Henderson v. CONNIE GIBSON, Director of CDCR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNDELL HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONNIE GIBSON, Director of CDCR;
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary of
CDCR; JENNIFER SHAFFER, Executive
Officer, PBH,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16191
D.C. No. 5:22-cv-01709-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Johndell Henderson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his
continued incarceration violates the constitution and various federal laws. We
* 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 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16191
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Henderson’s action without prejudice
because Henderson challenged the fact or duration of his confinement, success on
his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and
Henderson has not demonstrated that his conviction has been invalidated. See
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that, “in order to recover
damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,” a plaintiff
must prove “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus”); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding
that the “sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus” when a prisoner seeks
immediate or speedier release from incarceration).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --