FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DeWAYNE THOMPSON, No. 14-16338
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00625-AWI-
BAM
v.
M. P. HERNANDEZ; F. MUNOZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner DeWayne Thompson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
procedural due process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Huftile v.
*
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).
Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s action as barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success in Thompson’s action would
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and loss of
time credits, and Thompson failed to allege facts sufficient to show their
invalidation. 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)); Edwards v. Balisok,
520 U.S. 641, 645-48 (1997) (Heck rule applies to § 1983 claims for damages
alleging procedural defects with disciplinary hearing when based on the “deceit
and bias” of the decisionmaker); see also McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d
1091, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The disclaimer in the complaint that [plaintiffs] do
not seek relief that implicates the continuing validity of their confinement does not
bring their claims outside the reach of Heck.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thompson’s
motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because
2 14-16338
Thompson failed to establish any ground warranting reconsideration. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule
59(e)).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16338