Steven W. Rose v. State of California

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN W. ROSE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17787
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00681-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven W. Rose appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

LSS/Research 08-17787 2
constitutional violations, as well as several federal statutory and state law claims
against the State of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853–54 (9th Cir. 2003). We vacate and remand.
Although Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994), bars Rose’s request
for money damages in his challenge to the procedures used during his parole
hearing, it does not necessarily bar a claim for prospective injunctive and
declaratory relief. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (allowing
claims challenging parole procedures to proceed under § 1983 because the
injunctive and declaratory relief that plaintiffs sought would not necessarily spell
speedier release). Because Rose’s nearly 250-page complaint also requests
prospective injunctive and declaratory relief, it is not clear that he could not state a
viable claim under section 1983, if advised of the deficiencies in the complaint and
given an opportunity to amend and comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
(requiring a short and plain statement of the claim). Accordingly, we vacate the
judgment and remand for further proceedings. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that leave to amend should be granted if
it appears at all possible that a pro se plaintiff can correct the defects in the
pleading).

-- 2 of 3 --

LSS/Research 08-17787 3
Rose’s pending motions are denied.
Rose shall bear his own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --