Court Opinion

ID: 9366507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 20:01:33.548082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.922814
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

ROSENDO BUENO,                                  No. 22-15126

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:21-cv-01522-DAD-SAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden; T.
JACKSON, Associate Warden; R.
VELASCO, Lieutenant and Senior Hearing
Officer; A. MARTINEZ, Lieutenant &
Senior Hearing Officer,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Rosendo Bueno appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

      *
             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).
violations arising out of two disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 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 Bueno’s action as barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Bueno challenged the disciplinary

charges and the resulting loss of good-time credits, but he failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that the disciplinary charges, including the loss of good-time

credits, had been invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005)

(“[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or

duration of his confinement,” but “must [instead] seek federal habeas corpus

relief[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520

U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable

under § 1983).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     22-15126