Mimms v. Petrucelli
This text of 168 F. App'x 165 (Mimms v. Petrucelli) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Demond Maurice Mimms, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants sentenced him to an unconstitutional prison term. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mimms’s action because his challenge concerns the legality of his detention, and a [166]*166judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his continued confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
168 F. App'x 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mimms-v-petrucelli-ca9-2006.