Christopher John MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark W. SIAS, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
Opinion
ORDER
Federal prisoner Christopher John Martin appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), of his Bivens action for damages alleging that United States Probation Officer Mark W. Sias acted outside his authority in supervising Martin’s parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review a district court’s dismissal pursuant to section 1915(d) for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 , 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733-34 , 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995).
If a complaint filed by a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis is frivolous, a federal district court may dismiss the action pursuant to section 1915(d). A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 , 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995).
In Heck v. Humphrey, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the Supreme Court held “that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused…