Case ID: f-appx_559/html/0612-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David C. PATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. GONZALES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17413.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014 
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2014.
    David C. Patkins, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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 David C. Pat-kins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations in connection with a false rules violation report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Patkins’s action as Wec/c-barred because Patkins failed to allege facts showing that the results of the disciplinary hearing, including the loss of good-time credits, has been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable under § 1983); Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of confinement are barred unless the underlying conviction or sentence has been invalidated).

We reject Patkins’s contention that this court improperly denied his motion to stay appellate proceedings.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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