Court Opinion

ID: 9945486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:01:32.504189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.600195
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN C. STUART,                                 No. 22-16722

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00538-GMS-ESW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SHERRY K. STEPHENS; STATE OF
ARIZONA; KEITH MUNSON;
RICHMOND, First name unknown; named
as Mrs./Ms. Richmond; JENNIFER
RICHMOND, Librarian at Red Rock Private
Prison; JENNIFER RYAN-TOUHILL, Judge
at Maricopa County Superior Court;
UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as John/Jane
Does 1-99,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Arizona state prisoner John C. Stuart appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims.

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.

      The district court properly dismissed Stuart’s claims against defendants

Stephens and Ryan-Touhill as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

because success on Stuart’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction, and Stuart has not demonstrated that his conviction has been

invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (holding that if “a judgment in favor of

the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence

. . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).

      The district court properly dismissed Stuart’s claims against defendants

Munson and Richmond because Stuart failed to allege facts sufficient to show that

either defendant denied Stuart access to the courts or retaliated against Stuart. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (explaining that an access-to-courts

claim requires a plaintiff to show that defendants’ conduct caused an actual injury

to a nonfrivolous legal claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.

2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

                                          2                                    22-16722
       The district court properly dismissed Stuart’s remaining claims because

Stuart failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v.

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se

pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

       We reject as meritless Stuart’s contentions that the district court erred by

failing to construe Stuart’s action as a qui tam action or was biased against him.

       We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

       AFFIRMED.

                                             3                                   22-16722