22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T416,MEMORANDUM Arizona state prisoner Frank Mendez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with a prison gang validation. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We reverse and remand. Dismissal of Mendez’s claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), was improper because a successful challenge to Mendez’s gang validation would not neces sarily shorten the length of his confinement. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir.2003) (“the favorable termination rule does not apply to § 1983 suits challenging a disciplinary hearing or administrative sanction that does not affect the overall length of the prisoner’s confinement”). Mendez shall bear his own costs on appeal. REVERSED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T448,

MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Frank Mendez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with a prison gang validation. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We reverse and remand.

Dismissal of Mendez’s claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), was improper because a successful challenge to Mendez’s gang validation would not neces sarily shorten the length of his confinement. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir.2003) (“the favorable termination rule does not apply to § 1983 suits challenging a disciplinary hearing or administrative sanction that does not affect the overall length of the prisoner’s confinement”).

Mendez shall bear his own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.