William S. Neely v. County of Sacramento;

09-17318Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 27, 2010

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Richard R. Clifton, United States Circuit Judge for the**
Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILLIAM S. NEELY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17318
D.C. No. 08-cv-01950-RRC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 14, 2010***
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
William S. Neely, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17318 2
defendants failed to follow the equipment manufacturer’s internal standard when
analyzing DNA samples used in his criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572,
579 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Neely’s claims regarding obstruction
of justice, perjury, subornation of perjury, falsification of evidence, false arrest,
and malicious prosecution because a judgment in Neely’s favor would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Neely failed to allege that his conviction
has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
We do not consider other matters not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in Neely’s opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Neely’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Neely’s request for leave to amend is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.