Gary Eugene Kukes, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Candance J. Grubbs; Carole J. Caldwell; L. Gerald,defendants-appellees, 86 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 86 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted May 20, 1996. *Decided May 29, 1996

Before: BROWNING, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

California state prisoner Gary Eugene Kukes appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Kukes alleged that the Butte County clerk-recorder, a court reporter, and the Oroville Justice court clerk altered and removed transcripts from the record of his 1986 trial that led to his unlawful conviction of second degree murder. Kukes sought $2.5 million in damages from each defendant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

A prisoner's civil rights claim for damages attributable to an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid does not accrue until his sentence or fact of imprisonment has been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2373 (1994); Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585. Because Kukes' allegations necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and he has not shown that his conviction has been overturned, or otherwise invalidated, Kukes has no damages claim at this time. See Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2373; Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585.

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed this action as a matter of law. See Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2372.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

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

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.