Case Name: Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 06-16997
Parties: Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 286–287

Head Matter:
Abe WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-16997.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Abe Williams, Jr., lone, CA, pro se.
Anthony P. O’Brien, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies Williams' request. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Abe Williams, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to compel discovery, Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams' allegations that Defendants misapply various provisions of the California Penal Code rest on erroneous interpretations of state law such that Williams has not suffered any constitutional injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1079-80, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 (2005); In re Dayan, 231 Cal.App.3d 184, 186-89, 282 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1991).
Moreover, to the extent Williams' § 1983 action challenges prior parole suitability decisions or would otherwise necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the duration of his confinement, it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams' motion to compel discovery. See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751 (trial court's broad discretion to deny discovery "will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that [the] denial of discovery resulted] in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Williams' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny Williams' motion for removal of the stay of proceedings as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.