Case ID: f-appx_16/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Shawn SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; County of San Bernardino; Dennis Stout, San Bernardino County District Attorney; William Hess, Deputy District Attorney; Richard Young, Deputy District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-55287.
    D.C. No. CV-99-10138-CRM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.
    
    Decided March 29, 2001.
    Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Smith’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations stemming from the use of plea agreements entered into prior to adoption of California’s “three strikes” law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm the district court’s conclusion that these claims may not be pursued as part of a section 1983 action, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.