Case Name: Alfred TOLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.M. POWERS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-05
Citations: 298 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 07-15136
Parties: Alfred TOLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.M. POWERS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
Alfred TOLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K.M. POWERS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15136.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 5, 2008.
Alfred Toliver, Avenal, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alfred Toliver, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and the doctrine of absolute immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Toliver's claims challenging his continuing confinement. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994) (explaining that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of a criminal conviction or sentence); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (holding that habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983); see also Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that prisoner's challenge to the procedures used in the denial of parole must be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and not as a civil rights action under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Toliver's claims against members of the state parole board because those defendants are immune from suit. See Swift v. State of California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1189-90 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that parole board officials are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suits arising from decisions to grant, deny or revoke parole).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.