NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY TYRONE CAMPBELL, No. 15-16438
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01218-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFREY BEARD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Tyrone Campbell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations arising out of a disciplinary hearing and placement in
administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Campbell’s due process claims because
Campbell failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied any
procedural protections that were due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-
70 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary
proceedings); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986)
(setting forth due process requirements for placement in administrative
segregation), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472 (1995).
To the extent that Campbell seeks to challenge the results of his prison
disciplinary hearing, the district court properly dismissed Campbell’s claims
because, notwithstanding Campbell’s acquittal in a related criminal case, he has
not demonstrated that the results of the disciplinary hearing, including the loss of
good-time credits, have been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
648 (1997) (a “claim for declaratory relief and money damages, based on
allegations . . . that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed,”
2 15-16438
including the deprivation of good-time credits, “is not cognizable under § 1983”);
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (if “a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . .
the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). Because the district court
did not specify whether the dismissal of Campbell’s claims was with or without
prejudice, we treat the dismissal as being without prejudice. See Trimble v. City
of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 585, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissals under
Heck are without prejudice).
Campbell’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on January 4, 2016, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-16438