LAKEITH MCCOY V. TONI O'NEILL, No. 14-56334 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LaKEITH L. McCOY, AKA LaKeith LeRoy McCoy, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-56334 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-08674-RGKDFM v. MEMORANDUM* TONI CAREL O’NEILL, in individual capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner LaKeith L. McCoy, a.k.a. LaKeith LeRoy McCoy, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations in connection with his criminal * 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). trial transcript. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm. Dismissal of McCoy’s action was proper because McCoy failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (to establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff still must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). To the extent that McCoy seeks a new trial or alleges that his conviction was invalid, dismissal was proper because success in this action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of McCoy’s confinement. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005) (a prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred if success “would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]” unless “the 2 14-56334 conviction or sentence has already been invalidated” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). McCoy’s contentions regarding his ability to file objections and to obtain discovery are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 3 14-56334
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.
