Case Name: Michael D. ISHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bennie McGUINESS, DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-19
Citations: 180 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 05-15430
Parties: Michael D. ISHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bennie McGUINESS, DefendantAppellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
Michael D. ISHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bennie McGUINESS, DefendantAppellee.
No. 05-15430.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2006.
Filed May 19, 2006.
Michael D. Isham, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael D. Isham, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations stemming from the miscalculation of his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Is-ham's action under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), as it directly challenges the validity of his continued confinement.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Isham's action without leave to amend, because the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).
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.