BETTENCOURT v. SPENCER (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gary Ray Bettencourt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging wrongful conviction and conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bettencourt’s action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because success would necessarily imply the invalidity of Bettencourt’s conviction or sentence, and Bettencourt failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but must instead seek federal habeas corpus relief). To the extent that Bettencourt seeks release on parole as an alternative to summary release, his request is denied for the same reasons.

Bettencourt’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.

AFFIRMED.