ROBERTO HERRERA V. PERRY, No. 14-56003 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ROBERTO HERRERA, No. 14-56003 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01873-JAKDTB v. PERRY, individual and official capacity; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Roberto Herrera, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights in obtaining a state court criminal conviction. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Herrera’s action for damages as Heckbarred because if successful, his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Herrera has not demonstrated that his conviction has been overturned. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (the district court must dismiss a damages action, which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, absent a showing that the conviction has been overturned). Herrera’s motion for copies of certain district court documents, filed on March 16, 2015, is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 14-56003

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.