Case Name: Lance Christopher BADGETT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 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 679
Docket Number: No. 07-15559
Parties: Lance Christopher BADGETT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Lance Christopher BADGETT; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15559.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008 .
Filed Nov. 5, 2008.
Lance Christopher Badgett, Vacaville, 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). Accordingly, appellants' motion for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoners Lance Christopher Badgett, John Badgett, Barry Wi ley and Forrest Richardson ("appellants"), appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their 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). 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 appellants' action challenging the duration of their confinement. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (explaining that a civil tort action is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the validity of a criminal conviction or sentence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.