Case Name: Cedric O. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doria SELLING, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 399 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 08-16863
Parties: Cedric O. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doria SELLING, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
Cedric O. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doria SELLING, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-16863.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Cedric O. Howard, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Cedric 0. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Nevada Parole Board denied him institutional parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Howard's claim that he was denied institutional parole is Heckbarred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir.1997) ("Few things implicate the validity of continued confinement more directly than the allegedly improper denial of parole.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.