Simon v. Austin

Ninth Circuit

Simon v. Austin

307 F. App'x 100

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 2009

DocketNo. 07-35184

StatusPublished

This text of 307 F. App'x 100 (Simon v. Austin) 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

Simon v. Austin, 307 F. App'x 100 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Kimya F.E. Simon, a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his loss of good-time credits on the ground that it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because a judgment in Simon’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board’s (“ISRB”) decision to deny Simon good-time credits. Simon, who is out of custody, cannot seek to overturn the ISRB’s decision in a habeas proceeding and he has failed to show that any exceptions to the Heck-bar apply. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704 (9th Cir.2006) (“The fact that [plaintiffl is no longer in custody and thus cannot overturn his prior convictions by means of habeas corpus does not lift Heck’s bar.”); see also Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir.1981) (sua sponte dismissal prior to issuance of a summons is proper where claims are “wholly insubstantial”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

MEMORANDUM

**

Kimya F.E. Simon, a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his loss of good-time credits on the ground that it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because a judgment in Simon’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board’s (“ISRB”) decision to deny Simon good-time credits. Simon, who is out of custody, cannot seek to overturn the ISRB’s decision in a habeas proceeding and he has failed to show that any exceptions to the Heck-bar apply. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704 (9th Cir.2006) (“The fact that [plaintiffl is no longer in custody and thus cannot overturn his prior convictions by means of habeas corpus does not lift Heck’s bar.”); see also Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir.1981) (sua sponte dismissal prior to issuance of a summons is proper where claims are “wholly insubstantial”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 F. App'x 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-austin-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack