Frank Mendez v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of Arizona Dept. of Corrections at ADOC Central Office;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANK MENDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of Arizona
Dept. of Corrections at ADOC Central
Office; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16734
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00266-JAT-
LOA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Frank Mendez appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16734 2
connection with a prison gang validation. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse
and remand.
Dismissal of Mendez’s claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994), was improper because a successful challenge to Mendez’s gang
validation would not necessarily shorten the length of his confinement. See
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2003) (“the favorable termination
rule does not apply to § 1983 suits challenging a disciplinary hearing or
administrative sanction that does not affect the overall length of the prisoner’s
confinement”).
Mendez shall bear his own costs on appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --