Opinion
No. 20-55362
02-22-2021
JAE JEONG LYU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT HIGHT, Deputy of District Attorney, individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN P. YUTAN; STEPHEN ISAGO, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05533-JVS-FFM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Jae Jeong Lyu appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to his arrests and convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 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 Lyu's claims against defendants Gravely and Hight because they are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the scope of prosecutorial immunity).
We reject as without merit Lyu's contentions that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), is no longer good law and that the district court should have treated his operative complaint as a habeas petition.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.