# Samuel v. California

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 12, 2002 · 36 F. App'x 607

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7208846

## Case

- **Full name:** David Tyrone SAMUEL v. State of CALIFORNIA Brian Brown, Deputy District Attorney, and Bill Lockyer
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 12, 2002
- **Citations:** 36 F. App'x 607
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **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/7208846

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM ***
David Tyrone Samuel, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s *608 dismissal with prejudice of his action alleging civil rights violations arising from his state court conviction for first degree murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and after de novo review, Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998), we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Samuel’s action because it challenged the acceptance of his guilty plea, and a favorable judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Samuel may not bring such an action unless and until his conviction is reversed through a direct appeal or writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
The district court properly denied Samuel’s request for a discovery scheduling conference as moot.
The district court properly dismissed the action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Ashel-man v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *608 courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7208846. Public record. Not legal advice.