Fresquez v. Moeroyk

288 F. App'x 406
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 4, 2008·No. No. 06-17273·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Louis Richard Fresquez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his civil rights action alleging prison officials violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) by conducting a disciplinary hearing without a sign language interpreter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Fresquez’s claims that implicated the invalidity of a disciplinary conviction which resulted in lost good-time credits because Fresquez failed to demonstrate that the conviction had been successfully overturned. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding prisoner must demonstrate conviction or sentence has been successfully overturned before challenging validity of the conviction or sentence).

Fresquez’s remaining allegations concerning the conditions of his confinement are independent of his disciplinary conviction and should not have been dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999,1002 (9th Cir.1999) (finding disabled prisoner’s ADA and RA claims relating to the conditions, rather than duration or validity, of confinement are not Heck-barred); see also Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 696 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that Heck is not an evidentiary doctrine). We vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fresquez v. Moeroyk, 288 F. App'x 406 (9th Cir. 2008).

288 F. App'x 406 (Fresquez v. Moeroyk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Bogovich v. Sandoval
189 F.3d 999 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Simpson v. Thomas
528 F.3d 685 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)