Nobert-Manilisay Cruz v. Jennifer Karapetian
This text of Nobert-Manilisay Cruz v. Jennifer Karapetian (Nobert-Manilisay Cruz v. Jennifer Karapetian) 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOBERT-MANILISAY CRUZ, No. 19-55684
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08586-MWF-SS
v. MEMORANDUM* JENNIFER KARAPETIAN,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Nobert-Manilisay Cruz appeals pro se from the
* 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). district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related
to his imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Cruz’s action was proper because the action is barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 52 U.S. 477 (1994), as success in this action would necessarily imply
the invalidity of Cruz’s conviction or sentence, and Cruz failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has 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).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55684
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nobert-Manilisay Cruz v. Jennifer Karapetian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nobert-manilisay-cruz-v-jennifer-karapetian-ca9-2020.