Cedric O. Howard v. Doria Selling

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CEDRIC O. HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DORIA SELLING,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16863
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00786-RLH-RJJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cedric O. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Nevada
Parole Board denied him institutional parole. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16863 2
§ 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order),
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Howard’s claim that
he was denied institutional parole is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997)
(“Few things implicate the validity of continued confinement more directly than
the allegedly improper denial of parole.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --