Case ID: f-appx_307/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kimya F.E. SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John L. AUSTIN, III; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-35184.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 9, 2009.
    Kimya F.E. Simon, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-05695RBL.
    Before: WALLACE, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kimya F.E. Simon, a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his loss of good-time credits on the ground that it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because a judgment in Simon’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board’s (“ISRB”) decision to deny Simon good-time credits. Simon, who is out of custody, cannot seek to overturn the ISRB’s decision in a habeas proceeding and he has failed to show that any exceptions to the Heck-bar apply. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704 (9th Cir.2006) (“The fact that [plaintiffl is no longer in custody and thus cannot overturn his prior convictions by means of habeas corpus does not lift Heck’s bar.”); see also Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir.1981) (sua sponte dismissal prior to issuance of a summons is proper where claims are “wholly insubstantial”).

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