Case ID: f-appx_393/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-15015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 30, 2010.
    Michael Lenoir Smith, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Lenoir Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the use of California’s “three strikes” law in sentencing him violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Smith’s claims may not be pursued as part of a § 1983 action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

To the extent Smith challenges the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck, we are bound to follow that decision until it is explicitly overruled by that Court. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) (lower courts should “‘leav[e] to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions’ ”). To the extent Smith makes a facial challenge to California’s “three strikes” law, and has standing to do so, the Supreme Court has upheld California’s “three strikes” law against constitutional challenge, see Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 24-28, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003), and we are bound by that decision, see Agostini, 521 U.S. at 237, 117 S.Ct. 1997.

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