Nobert-Manilisay Cruz v. Jennifer Karapetian ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 5 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NOBERT-MANILISAY CRUZ,                          No. 19-55684
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08586-MWF-SS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JENNIFER KARAPETIAN,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 2, 2020**
    Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Nobert-Manilisay Cruz appeals pro se from the
    *
    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).
    district court’s order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging claims related
    to his imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
    
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
    record. Thompson v. Paul, 
    547 F.3d 1055
    , 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
    Dismissal of Cruz’s action was proper because the action is barred by Heck
    v. Humphrey, 
    52 U.S. 477
     (1994), as success in this action would necessarily imply
    the invalidity of Cruz’s conviction or sentence, and Cruz failed to allege facts
    sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. 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, but must
    instead seek federal habeas corpus relief).
    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                                       19-55684
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-55684

Filed Date: 6/5/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/5/2020