Gene Anderson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Phil Stanley, Defendant-appellee, 132 F.3d 38 (9th Cir. 1997)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SNEED, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Gene Daniel Anderson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e) (2) (B) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his conviction after a plea agreement, and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal as frivolous, see Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), and de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.
Because Anderson's claims necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Anderson did not allege in his complaint that his conviction had been reversed, expunged, invalidated or impugned, the district court did not err by dismissing Anderson's claims as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585.1
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, we deny Anderson's request for oral argument
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3
We grant Anderson's motion to submit evidence of his grievance against his counsel. We deny Anderson's motion for appointment of counsel, see Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986), and for production of transcripts at government expense, see United States v. Connors, 904 F.2d 535, 536 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (indigent prisoner entitled to transcripts on habeas corpus petition)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
