Steven Turner, Jr. v. William Sullivan ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 15 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEVEN DEON TURNER, Jr.,                        No. 19-16848
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01737-AWI-JDP
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM JOE SULLIVAN, Warden,
    Tehachapi California Correctional
    Institution; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Steven Deon Turner, Jr., appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging
    retaliation and conspiracy claims arising out of a disciplinary charge. We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal as Heck-
    barred. Whitaker v. Garcetti, 
    486 F.3d 572
    , 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Turner’s action as barred by Heck v.
    Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994), because Turner challenged the disciplinary
    charge and the resulting loss of good-time credits but he failed to allege facts
    sufficient to show that the disciplinary charge, including the loss of good-time
    credits, had 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[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Edwards v. Balisok, 
    520 U.S. 641
    , 645 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable under
    § 1983).
    Turner’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    19-16848