NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY R. ANDOE, No. 17-35178
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00395-REB
v.
MEMORANDUM**
DONALD J. TRUMP*, President; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald E. Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding***
Submitted July 11, 2017****
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Johnny R. Andoe, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
*
Donald J. Trump has been substituted for his predecessor, Barack
Obama, as President of the United States under Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
***
Andoe consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
****
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), challenging
the constitutionality of various federal and state laws. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892
(9th Cir. 2011) (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)(B)(ii)). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Andoe’s action on the basis that it was barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). However, we note that none of the
statutes cited in the complaint are relevant to Andoe’s criminal conviction or term
of confinement. Thus, success on the merits of Andoe’s constitutional challenge
would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. See id. at
487 (explaining that 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”). We reverse the judgment, and remand for the district
court to consider the merits of Andoe’s claims in the first instance, and to
determine whether leave to amend would be appropriate. See Lucas v. Dep’t of
Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] pro se litigant is entitled to notice of
2 17-35178
the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the
action.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3 17-35178