Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0747-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl A. BROOKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-35046.
    D.C. No. CV-03-05285-RBL/KLS.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 14, 2005.
    Carl A. Brooks, pro se, Airway Heights, WA.
    Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carl A. Brooks, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the retroactive application of parole procedures established by the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that Brooks failed to assert a cause of action under section 1983 because it would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement, and was therefore barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383, (1994). See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir.1997) (indicating that a due process challenge to parole procedures implicates the validity of continued confinement, even when a prisoner is not challenging the validity of his conviction).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.