FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 9 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, No. 13-16677
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03095-KJM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of Dep.
Corr.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Shaun Darnell Garland appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to his
criminal sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as Heck-barred Garland’s claim
challenging the validity of his restitution fine. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that, “in order to recover damages for an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a plaintiff
must prove “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus”).
The district court properly dismissed as frivolous Garland’s claim seeking
compensation under California Penal Code § 2900.5. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920
F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (defining “frivolous” as having no arguable basis in
fact or law).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16677