Cedric Howard v. Doria Selling, No. 08-16863 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CEDRIC O. HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-16863 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00786-RLH-RJJ v. MEMORANDUM * DORIA SELLING, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Cedric O. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Nevada Parole Board denied him institutional parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Howard s claim that he was denied institutional parole is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) ( Few things implicate the validity of continued confinement more directly than the allegedly improper denial of parole. ). AFFIRMED. 2 08-16863

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.