Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0374-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emiliano LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-17830.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
    Emiliano Lopez, Avenal, CA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Emiliano Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal constitutional violations in connection with his parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We reverse and remand.

The district court entered a judgment of dismissal of Lopez’s action because his claims sounded in habeas and could entitle him to earlier release. However, success in this action would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his continued confinement and, therefore, Lopez’s claims are not barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (prisoner may challenge procedures used in parole hearing under § 1983, provided he does not seek “immediate or speedier release”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.