Robert Erler v. Connie Bisbee

Ninth Circuit

Robert Erler v. Connie Bisbee

616 F. App'x 235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2015

Docket14-16981

StatusUnpublished

This text of 616 F. App'x 235 (Robert Erler v. Connie Bisbee) 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

Robert Erler v. Connie Bisbee, 616 F. App'x 235 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Robert Erler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations in connection with his parole hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Erler’s action under Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), because it concluded that Erler’s claims sound in habeas and challenge the validity of his confinement. However, because Er-ler sought a new parole hearing and not immediate or speedier release, success in this action would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of Erler’s continued confinement or its duration. See id. at 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (allowing procedural challenges to parole hearings because the injunctive and declaratory relief that plaintiffs sought under § 1983 “would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release”); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (“Ordinarily, a prayer for ... prospective relief [to engage in a particular procedure] will not ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of a previous [decision], and so may properly be brought under § 1983.”). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Erler’s action. We express no opinion on *236 the merits of Erler’s claims or his entitlement to the relief sought.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Erler’s contentions regarding the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- ’ edby 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Robert Erler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations in connection with his parole hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Erler’s action under Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), because it concluded that Erler’s claims sound in habeas and challenge the validity of his confinement. However, because Er-ler sought a new parole hearing and not immediate or speedier release, success in this action would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of Erler’s continued confinement or its duration. See id. at 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (allowing procedural challenges to parole hearings because the injunctive and declaratory relief that plaintiffs sought under § 1983 “would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release”); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (“Ordinarily, a prayer for ... prospective relief [to engage in a particular procedure] will not ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of a previous [decision], and so may properly be brought under § 1983.”). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Erler’s action. We express no opinion on *236 the merits of Erler’s claims or his entitlement to the relief sought.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Erler’s contentions regarding the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- ’ edby 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 F. App'x 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-erler-v-connie-bisbee-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack