Gene Moran v. Meagan J. Beale;

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, and therefore denies Moran’s request. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENE MORAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEAGAN J. BEALE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56005
D.C. No. 8:07-cv-01057-MMM-
RNB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gene Moran, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 08-56005 2
defendants failed to correct perjured testimony by government witnesses. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Reyn’s Pasta Bella,
LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moran’s action because he seeks to
litigate issues identical to those that were already litigated and decided in his
federal habeas case. See Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 323-25 (9th Cir. 1993)
(per curiam) (precluding a plaintiff from religitating claims in a civil rights action
that were already litigated and decided in his federal habeas case); see also Reyn’s
Pasta Bella, 442 F.3d at 746 (listing the elements for issue preclusion). Moreover,
Moran’s section 1983 claims are Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994) (precluding a section 1983 action when a judgment in favor of
the plaintiff would necessarily imply invalidity of his sentence); see also Spencer
v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998) (explaining that a former prisoner is not
proscribed from challenging a conviction in habeas corpus after completing his
sentence because a wrongful criminal conviction has continuing collateral
consequences).
Moran’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --