Texte intégral
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAE JEONG LYU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT HIGHT, Deputy of District
Attorney, individual and official capacity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN P. YUTAN; STEPHEN ISAGO,
Defendants.
No. 20-55362
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05533-JVS-FFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 20-55362
California state prisoner Jae Jeong Lyu appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims related to his arrests and convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lyu’s claims against defendants
Gravely and Hight because they are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. See
Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the scope of
prosecutorial immunity).
We reject as without merit Lyu’s contentions that Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), is no longer good law and that the district court should have
treated his operative complaint as a habeas petition.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --