NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD ALEX STEVENSON, No. 17-15454
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00308-MMD-
WGC
v.
CONNIE S. BISBEE; DARLA FOLEY, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Ronald Alex Stevenson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal
protection and First Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,
1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may
affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055,
1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Stevenson’s equal protection claim relating to potential
considerations at a future parole board hearing was proper because Stevenson
failed to allege facts sufficient to establish an injury as required for Article III
standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)
(identifying three core requirements for standing under Article III); see also
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (“[Threatened injury must
be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact, and . . . allegations of possible
future injury are not sufficient.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Stevenson’s First Amendment claim
because success in Stevenson’s claim would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity
of his confinement or its duration, and Stevenson failed to allege that his
conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,
80-82 (2005) (a prisoner’s § 1983 claim is barred if success “would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]” unless “the conviction
2 17-15454
or sentence has already been invalidated” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15454