DAVIS v. SHINN (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Carl Dwight Davis appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to his imprisonment. 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 Davis's action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because success in this action would necessarily imply the invalidity of Davis's conviction or sentence, and Davis 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).

We do not consider facts or documents that were not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Davis's pending motion (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied. To the extent Davis requests relief related to the conditions of his confinement, his request is denied as outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.