Case Name: Mateo Enriquez GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN DOE, I; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-04
Citations: 125 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 04-56088
Parties: Mateo Enriquez GONZALEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. JOHN DOE, I; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Mateo Enriquez GONZALEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. JOHN DOE, I; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-56088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 4, 2005.
Mateo Enriquez Gonzalez, CESP-Centinela State Prison, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mateo Gonzalez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order denying him leave to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prepayment of the full filing fee. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we review de novo the determination that Gonzalez's complaint lacked merit. Tripati v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.
The district court did not err in denying Gonzalez's leave to proceed in forma pauperis because, in his complaint, Gonzalez seeks to challenge his state court conviction, for which his exclusive federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.