Case Name: Steven W. ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 975
Docket Number: No. 08-17787
Parties: Steven W. ROSE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 975–976

Head Matter:
Steven W. ROSE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17787.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Steven W. Rose, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Steven W. Rose appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations, as well as several federal statutory and state law claims against the State of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir.2003). We vacate and remand.
Although Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), bars Rose's request for money damages in his challenge to the procedures used during his parole hearing, it does not necessarily bar a claim for prospective in-junctive and declaratory relief. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 76, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (allowing claims challenging parole procedures to proceed under § 1983 because the in-junctive and declaratory relief that plaintiffs sought would not necessarily spell speedier release). Because Rose's nearly 250-page complaint also requests prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, it is not clear that he could not state a viable claim under section 1983, if advised of the deficiencies in the complaint and given an opportunity to amend and comply with Rule 8. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (requiring a short and plain statement of the claim). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (stating that leave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that a pro se plaintiff can correct the defects in the pleading).
Rose's pending motions are denied.
Rose shall bear his own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.