Jenghiz K. Stewart v. MELYSSA RODERICK, L.C.S.W. at Family Transitions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENGHIZ K. STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MELYSSA RODERICK, L.C.S.W. at
Family Transitions; TINA GARBY, Psy.D
at Psychological Consultant Services,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16157
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02653-GMS-
JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Jenghiz K. Stewart appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims against two mental health clinicians who provided him with psychological
FILED
AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 --

treatment while he was on probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hamilton v.
Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on Stewart’s claims would
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his probation revocation, and Stewart
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has been
invalidated. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005) (a prisoner’s
§ 1983 action is barred if success “would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration[,]” unless “the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Stewart’s contention that the district court
improperly denied his motion to compel the release and forwarding of his legal
property.
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
15-16157 2

-- 2 of 2 --