From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borden v. Gautier

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 27, 2012
472 F. App'x 809 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 10-17822 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02435-KJN

04-27-2012

DANIEL F. BORDEN, Sr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. GAUTIER; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kendall J. Newman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Borden consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).


Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Daniel F. Borden, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution and other claims related to his conviction. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Borden's action because it appears from the face of the complaint that the action is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994) (applying "the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments . . . to § 1983 damages actions that necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement").

Borden's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Borden's request to waive copies is granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Borden v. Gautier

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 27, 2012
472 F. App'x 809 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Borden v. Gautier

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL F. BORDEN, Sr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. GAUTIER; et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 27, 2012

Citations

472 F. App'x 809 (9th Cir. 2012)