Thomas H. Longnecker v. Yvonne A. Walters, Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms Board of Prison Terms

Ninth Circuit

Thomas H. Longnecker v. Yvonne A. Walters, Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms Board of Prison Terms

145 F.3d 1339, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19796, 1998 WL 337953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1998

Docket96-56398

StatusUnpublished

This text of 145 F.3d 1339 (Thomas H. Longnecker v. Yvonne A. Walters, Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms Board of Prison Terms) 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

Thomas H. Longnecker v. Yvonne A. Walters, Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms Board of Prison Terms, 145 F.3d 1339, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19796, 1998 WL 337953 (9th Cir. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

145 F.3d 1339

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Thomas H. LONGNECKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Yvonne A. WALTERS, Commissioner of the Board of Prison
Terms; Board of Prison Terms, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-56398.
DC No. CV-96-00333-NAJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted** May 6, 1998.
Decided May 26, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, NOONAN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Thomas Longnecker appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenging the imposition of "special conditions" on his parole and the subsequent revocation of his parole for violation of those conditions. Longnecker's complaint requested, among other demands, that his original parole termination date be restored.

Because Longnecker's complaint "would necessarily imply the invalidity of the judgment or continuing confinement," it must be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.1997); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1587, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). It is immaterial that Longnecker challenges the procedures used to extend his parole release date and not the results of the parole hearing. See Edwards, 117 S.Ct. at 1587-88, Gotcher v. Wood, 122 F.3d 39, 39 (9th Cir.1997).

Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Longnecker's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

DISMISSED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34-4

*

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 Cir.R. 36-3

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

145 F.3d 1339

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Thomas H. LONGNECKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Yvonne A. WALTERS, Commissioner of the Board of Prison
Terms; Board of Prison Terms, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-56398.
DC No. CV-96-00333-NAJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted** May 6, 1998.
Decided May 26, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, NOONAN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Thomas Longnecker appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenging the imposition of "special conditions" on his parole and the subsequent revocation of his parole for violation of those conditions. Longnecker's complaint requested, among other demands, that his original parole termination date be restored.

Because Longnecker's complaint "would necessarily imply the invalidity of the judgment or continuing confinement," it must be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.1997); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1587, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). It is immaterial that Longnecker challenges the procedures used to extend his parole release date and not the results of the parole hearing. See Edwards, 117 S.Ct. at 1587-88, Gotcher v. Wood, 122 F.3d 39, 39 (9th Cir.1997).

Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Longnecker's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

DISMISSED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34-4

*

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 Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.3d 1339, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19796, 1998 WL 337953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-h-longnecker-v-yvonne-a-walters-commissioner-of-the-board-of-ca9-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack