Johnson v. Terhune

Ninth Circuit

Johnson v. Terhune

152 F. App'x 586

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2005

DocketNo. 04-16091; D.C. No. CV-02-01400-WBS/PAN

StatusPublished

This text of 152 F. App'x 586 (Johnson v. Terhune) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Terhune, 152 F. App'x 586 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Timothy Demetrius Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when prison officials refused to correct false information in the report prepared in advance of his hearing before the Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.1997), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because his challenge to the procedures used before the BPT necessarily implicates the validity of his continued confinement. See id. (“Few things implicate the validity of continued confinement more directly than the allegedly improper denial of parole. This is true whether that denial is alleged to be improper based upon procedural defects in the parole hearing or upon allegations that parole was improperly denied on the merits.”). We reject Johnson’s contention that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) alters this analysis.

Johnson’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Timothy Demetrius Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when prison officials refused to correct false information in the report prepared in advance of his hearing before the Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.1997), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because his challenge to the procedures used before the BPT necessarily implicates the validity of his continued confinement. See id. (“Few things implicate the validity of continued confinement more directly than the allegedly improper denial of parole. This is true whether that denial is alleged to be improper based upon procedural defects in the parole hearing or upon allegations that parole was improperly denied on the merits.”). We reject Johnson’s contention that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) alters this analysis.

Johnson’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F. App'x 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-terhune-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack