# Emiliano Lopez v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 2, 2014 · 551 F. App'x 374

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2648058

## Case

- **Full name:** Emiliano LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of California; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 2, 2014
- **Citations:** 551 F. App'x 374
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Goodwin, Wallace, Graber
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2648058

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILIANO LOPEZ, No. 12-17830

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01065-LJO-GSA

v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor of
California; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2013**

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Emiliano Lopez appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal

constitutional violations in connection with his parole hearing. We have

*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213

F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.

1998) (order). We reverse and remand.

The district court entered a judgment of dismissal of Lopez’s action because

his claims sounded in habeas and could entitle him to earlier release. However,

success in this action would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of his

continued confinement and, therefore, Lopez’s claims are not barred under Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994). See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74,

81-82 (2005) (prisoner may challenge procedures used in parole hearing under

§ 1983, provided he does not seek “immediate or speedier release”). Accordingly,

we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 12-17830

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2648058. Public record. Not legal advice.