Shane Willis v. City of Salem, Oregon

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Shane D. Willis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Willis’s alleged illegal search and seizure claim. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by Wallace v. Koto, 549 U.S. 384 , 127 S.Ct. 1091 , 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (“a § 1983 action that would call into question the lawfulness of a plaintiffs conviction or confinement is not cognizable” under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). Because it is clear this claim cannot be cured by amendment, the district court properly dismissed it without leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm as to this claim.

The district court, however, prematurely dismissed Willis’s claims based on alleged physical assault by the officers who arrested…