Fong
Paul Johnson v. Fong
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Paul Samuel Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. 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 in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s claims relating to his disciplinary hearing and the circumstances surrounding it as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because Johnson failed to allege that the results of the disciplinary hearing had been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 , 117 S.Ct. 1584 , 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (claims based on allegations that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed are not cognizable under § 1983).
The district court erred, however, in dismissing at the screening stage Johnson’s claim relating to the alleged unlawful conditions of confinement at San Quentin Security Housing Unit on the ground that Johnson failed to demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies in…