Stewart
v.
Roderick

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITAug 25, 2016
No. 15-16157 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Webster v. Cnty. of L.A.

    …Ifjudgment in favor of a plaintiff would imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction, then the "complaint…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

No. 15-16157

08-25-2016

JENGHIZ K. STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MELYSSA RODERICK, L.C.S.W. at Family Transitions; TINA GARBY, Psy.D at Psychological Consultant Services, Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02653-GMS-JZB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Arizona state prisoner Jenghiz K. Stewart appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims against two mental health clinicians who provided him with psychological treatment while he was on probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on Stewart's claims would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his probation revocation, and Stewart failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005) (a prisoner's § 1983 action is barred if success "would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]" unless "the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Stewart's contention that the district court improperly denied his motion to compel the release and forwarding of his legal property.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.