KEVIN LEWIS V. JAN SCULLY, No. 17-15241 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 15 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN LEWIS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15241 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01080-TLN-KJN v. MEMORANDUM* JAN SCULLY, District Attorney, Sacramento County; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his state court conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action as Heck-barred because success on Lewis’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Lewis failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against Judges Mendez, Gilliard, and Newman on the basis of judicial immunity because Lewis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine). The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against defendants Scully and Asker on the basis of prosecutorial immunity because Lewis failed to 2 17-15241 allege facts sufficient to show that the actions of these defendants were not “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining prosecutorial immunity doctrine). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion to recuse because Lewis failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for recusal). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 17-15241
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.
