# Jambri Johnson, Sr. v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 16, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4526262

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 16, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/4526262

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMBRI SEAN JOHNSON, Sr., No. 19-16454

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-03500-WHA

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

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Jambri Sean Johnson, Sr., appeals pro se from the

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

conviction and conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

*
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).

1 19-16454
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action as barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success would necessarily imply the

invalidity Johnson’s conviction or sentence, and Johnson failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (a prisoner in state custody cannot use

a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but must

instead seek federal habeas corpus relief).

We do not consider 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 19-16454

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4526262. Public record. Not legal advice.