Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0893-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Terrence MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Olivia CRAVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-35553.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Terrence Matthews, Boise, ID, pro se.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terrence Matthews, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his parole revocation and subsequent denial of parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Matthews’s claims are premised on his “actual innocence” and success on the merits of these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, because the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, we vacate the judgment in part, and remand for entry of dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995)(per curiam) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED. 
      
       xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.