David C. Patkins v. R. Gonzales;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID C. PATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. GONZALES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17413
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03440-KJM-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David C. Patkins appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
due process violations in connection with a false rules violation report. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. Garcetti,
FILED
FEB 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Patkins’s action as Heck-barred
because Patkins failed to allege facts showing that the results of the disciplinary
hearing, including the loss of good-time credits, has been invalidated. See
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time
credits not cognizable under § 1983); Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (§ 1983 claims that
necessarily challenge the fact or duration of confinement are barred unless the
underlying conviction or sentence has been invalidated).
We reject Patkins’s contention that this court improperly denied his motion
to stay appellate proceedings.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --