Shaun Garland v. Matthew Cate

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Shaun Darnell Garland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to his criminal sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a 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 as Heck-barred Garland’s claim challenging the validity of his restitution fine. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding that, “in' order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a plaintiff must prove “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus”).

The district court properly dismissed as frivolous Garland’s claim seeking compensation under California Penal Code § 2900.5. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920…