FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRENCE MATTHEWS, No. 11-35553
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00245-MHW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
OLIVIA CRAVEN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted October 9, 2012 ***
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Terrence Matthews, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Matthews 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).
violations in connection with his parole revocation and subsequent denial of
parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Matthews’s claims
are premised on his “actual innocence” and success on the merits of these claims
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). However, because the district court dismissed the
action with prejudice, we vacate the judgment in part, and remand for entry of
dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585
(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
2 11-35553