NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY TYRONE CAMPBELL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JEFFREY BEARD; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-16438

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01218-LJO-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2016**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Tyrone Campbell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from 

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due 

process violations arising out of a disciplinary hearing and placement in 

administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 25 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16438

review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 

1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Campbell’s due process claims because 

Campbell failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied any 

procedural protections that were due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-

70 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary 

proceedings); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(setting forth due process requirements for placement in administrative 

segregation), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 

472 (1995). 

To the extent that Campbell seeks to challenge the results of his prison 

disciplinary hearing, the district court properly dismissed Campbell’s claims

because, notwithstanding Campbell’s acquittal in a related criminal case, he has 

not demonstrated that the results of the disciplinary hearing, including the loss of 

good-time credits, have been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 

648 (1997) (a “claim for declaratory relief and money damages, based on 

allegations . . . that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed,” 
3 15-16438

including the deprivation of good-time credits, “is not cognizable under § 1983”); 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (if “a judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . 

the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the 

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). Because the district court 

did not specify whether the dismissal of Campbell’s claims was with or without 

prejudice, we treat the dismissal as being without prejudice. See Trimble v. City 

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 585, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissals under 

Heck are without prejudice). 

Campbell’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on January 4, 2016, is 

denied. 

AFFIRMED.