Michael Lenoir Smith v. State of California

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-15015
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01788-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Lenoir Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
use of California’s “three strikes” law in sentencing him violated his constitutional
FILED
AUG 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15015 2
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick
v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Smith’s claims may not be
pursued as part of a § 1983 action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994).
To the extent Smith challenges the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck, we
are bound to follow that decision until it is explicitly overruled by that Court. See
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997) (lower courts should “‘leav[e] to this
Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions’”). To the extent Smith
makes a facial challenge to California’s “three strikes” law, and has standing to do
so, the Supreme Court has upheld California’s “three strikes” law against
constitutional challenge, see Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 24-28 (2003), and
we are bound by that decision, see Agostini, 521 U.S. at 237.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --