Court Opinion

ID: 9389995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:01:11.750196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.969175
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY K. ANDERSON,                            No.    22-16856

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00734-GMN-VCF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF NEVADA; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                   Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Nevada state prisoner Anthony K. Anderson 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

      *
             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).
dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti,

486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

      The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action as Heck-barred

because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence, and Anderson has not demonstrated that his conviction has

been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (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”); Thornton v. Brown, 757

F.3d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[P]risoner may challenge the ‘fact’ or ‘duration’ of

imprisonment only through a habeas proceeding.” (citations omitted)). We affirm

the dismissal, but remand to the district court with instructions to amend the

judgment to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of

Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

      Based upon Anderson’s litigation history, the magistrate judge

recommended that Anderson be ordered to show cause why he should not be

deemed a vexatious litigant. Rather than issue an order to show cause, the district

court declared Anderson a vexatious litigant and entered a pre-filing review order

against him. We vacate the district court’s November 23, 2022 order to the extent

that it deems Anderson a vexatious litigant and imposes a pre-filing restriction, and

                                           2                                     22-16856
remand to the district court to give Anderson an opportunity to show cause why he

should not be declared a vexatious litigant. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of

Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review

and requirements for pre-filing review orders).

      Anderson’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 3) and motion for

appointment of pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) are denied.

      AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with

instructions to amend the judgment.

                                         3                                  22-16856