From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lynch v. Alameda County

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2010
398 F. App'x 295 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-15192.

Submitted September 13, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 6, 2010.

Theron N. Lynch, Avenal, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:08-cv-05424-PJH.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

Theron N. Lynch, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the abstract of judgment for his sentence is incorrect and requires him to serve his full sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as Heck-barred because a judgment in Lynch's favor "would necessarily imply the invalidity of his . . . sentence," and Lynch has not demonstrated that his sentence has already been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Lynch v. Alameda County

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2010
398 F. App'x 295 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Lynch v. Alameda County

Case Details

Full title:Theron N. LYNCH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 6, 2010

Citations

398 F. App'x 295 (9th Cir. 2010)