Kay Elliot Farley, II v. Swayn E. Moore Rand Schuft Wayne Teglia John Slansky

76 F.3d 385 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Kay Elliot FARLEY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Swayn E. MOORE; Rand Schuft; Wayne Teglia; John Slansky, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-15650. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 23, 1996. * Decided Jan. 25, 1996. Before: ALARCON, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Kay Elliot Farley II, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He contends the district erred when it dismissed his action based on Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and affirm. 3 On August 23, 1991, Farley filed this section 1983 action seeking damages from defendants for unlawful arrest, illegal search and seizure, and malicious…