Richardson v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Good Law
599 F. App'x 312
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 20, 201514-16203California394 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Duke Monroe Richardson, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii)); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We vacate in part and remand.

On appeal, Richardson challenges only the dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as Wec/c-barred. It appears that Richardson’s claim includes a challenge to an unconstitutional procedure — namely, the denial of an investigator — and is based in part on an alleged failure to issue Rules Violation Reports to other inmates involved in the incident underlying Richardson’s disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, is not Heck- barred. See Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872 , 875 n. 3 (9th Cir.2002) (“A prisoner who seeks damages only for being subjected to unconstitutional procedures, without implying the invalidity of (or seeking damages for) the resulting loss of good-time credits,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.