Case Name: Michael HORBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-13
Citations: 475 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 11-17533
Parties: Michael HORBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 237–237

Head Matter:
Michael HORBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. CURRY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17533.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
Michael Horbert, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Horbert, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated in a prison disciplinary hearing that deprived him of time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.
The. district court properly dismissed Horbert's action because Horbert failed to allege that the results of the disciplinary hearing had been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) ("claim for declaratory relief and money damages, based on allegations . that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed," including the deprivation of good-time credits, "is not cognizable under § 1983"); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (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" through habeas or other means).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.