Carl Dwight Davis v. DAVID SHINN, Director, Dept of Correction, State of Arizona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARL DWIGHT DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DAVID SHINN, Director, Dept of
Correction, State of Arizona,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-15790

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00163-GMS-
MHB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Carl Dwight Davis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to
his imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213

*
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

SEP 16 2020

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

2 20-15790
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success in this action would necessarily
imply the invalidity of Davis’s conviction or sentence, and Davis 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 facts or documents that were not presented to the district
court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Davis’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied. To the extent
Davis requests relief related to the conditions of his confinement, his request is
denied as outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.