United States v. 2020-04-16 | 19-16454 | JAMBRI JOHNSON, SR. V. EDMUND BROWN, JR. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

1 19-16454
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMBRI SEAN JOHNSON, Sr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16454

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-03500-WHA

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Jambri Sean Johnson, Sr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging wrongful
conviction and conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

*
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).
FILED

APR 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16454
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success would necessarily imply the
invalidity Johnson’s conviction or sentence, and Johnson failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (a prisoner in state custody cannot use
a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but must
instead seek federal habeas corpus relief).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.