Court Opinion

ID: 9891807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:43.751911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:40.264074
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL BURRUEL, III,                            No. 23-15065

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00116-ADA-EPG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
ROB BONTA, California Attorney General,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                     Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Manuel Burruel, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising

from his civil commitment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal

      *
             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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th

Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Burruel’s constitutional claims as

Heck-barred because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity

of his civil commitment, and Burruel has not demonstrated that his commitment

has been invalidated. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th

Cir. 2005) (holding that a plaintiff’s claims are Heck-barred where the success of

his § 1983 claim “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his civil

commitment”); see also 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”). Contrary to

Burruel’s contention, the district court did not err by construing this case as a

§ 1983 action.

      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).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    23-15065