N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GILB ER TO JUAR

EZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. TW ENTY FIVE C OUR T OFFIC ER S; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16669 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-02431-WHA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Gilbe rto Jua

re za ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his ac t ion a lle g ing viola tions of fe de ra l la

w in c onne c tion with the

use of purporte d ly

fa lse e vide nc e in his c rim ina l prose c ution



# FIL ED OCT 7 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and them isha ndling of le ga l doc um e nts in subse que nt proc e e dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dismi ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A, a

nd we m a y a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d

by the re c ord. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . To thee xte nt tha

t Jua re za lle ge s a

c la im a ga inst fe de ra l c ourt c le rks for viola tion of theFre e dom

of Inform ation Ac t, thedistric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d be c a use “ the provisions of the FOIA im pose no obliga

tion on the

c ourts to produc e any re c ords in the ir posse s sion.” W arth v . De p’t of J ustic e , 595 F.2d 521, 522 (9th C ir. 1979). To thee xte nt tha

t Jua re za lle ge s a

c la im a ga inst fe de ra l c ourt c le rks for viola tion of his due

proc e ss rights, dism

issa l wa s prope r be c a

use m e re ne glige nt a c ts by offic i a ls do not give

rise to c onstitutiona

l viola t ions, a nd at m ost, Jua

re z a lle ge d fa c t s showing ne g lige nc e . S e e Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th C ir. 2011) (e xpla ining tha

t “ a Biv e ns a c tion is the

fe de ra l a na log to a n a c tion a g a inst sta te or loc a l offic ia ls unde r [42 U.S.C .] § 1983” ); C ounty of Sac rame n to v . Le w is , 523 U.S. 833, 848-50 (1998) (a ne glige nt a c t of a

n offic ia l tha

t c a use s loss of life , libe rty , or prope rty doe s not sta te a due proc e ss viola

tion). To thee xte nt tha

t Jua re za lle ge s a

c la im a ga inst “ 25 c o urt offic e rs” for viola tions of his due

proc e ss rights in c onne c tion with his crim ina l prose c ution, 1 3 - 1 6 6 6 9 2dismissa l wa s prope r be c a use suc c e ss on the m e rits of Jua re z ’ s c la i m

would ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva lidity

of his c onvic tion or se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt, a

nd Jua re zfa i le d to a lle g e tha

t his c onvic tion or se nte nc e e nha n c e m e nt ha s be e n inva lida t e d. Se eHe c k

v . Humphre

y , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 489 (1994) (pre c luding § 1983 c la im s whic h, if suc c e ssful, “would ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva l idity ” of a

n inm ate ’ s c onvic tion or se nte nc e ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 6 6 9 3