Case Name: Terrence MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Olivia CRAVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-16
Citations: 485 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 11-35553
Parties: Terrence MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Olivia CRAVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 893–894

Head Matter:
Terrence MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Olivia CRAVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35553.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
Terrence Matthews, Boise, ID, pro se.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Terrence Matthews, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his parole revocation and subsequent denial of parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Matthews's claims are premised on his "actual innocence" and success on the merits of these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, because the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, we vacate the judgment in part, and remand for entry of dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995)(per curiam) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.