Rotar v. Skaggs

Ninth Circuit

Rotar v. Skaggs

128 F. App'x 666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 2005

DocketNo. 04-15745

StatusPublished

This text of 128 F. App'x 666 (Rotar v. Skaggs) 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

Rotar v. Skaggs, 128 F. App'x 666 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Leonora and Viorel Rotar appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a Deputy District Attorney and a Superior Court Judge violated their constitutional rights by prosecuting them on the basis of forged pleadings and manufactured evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Rotars’ action because their claims implicate the validity of their state-court convictions, and they have not proven that their convictions were reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1013-14 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Leonora and Viorel Rotar appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a Deputy District Attorney and a Superior Court Judge violated their constitutional rights by prosecuting them on the basis of forged pleadings and manufactured evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Rotars’ action because their claims implicate the validity of their state-court convictions, and they have not proven that their convictions were reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1013-14 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 F. App'x 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotar-v-skaggs-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack