LEODIAS EDWARDS V. JAMES DZURENDA, No. 19-16207 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 11 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEODIAS EDWARDS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-16207 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00119-MMD-CBC MEMORANDUM* JAMES DZURENDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 3, 2020** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Loedias Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging miscalculation of his parole eligibility date. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1921. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. * 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). Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s action as Heck-barred because Edwards failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 486-87 (1994) (“[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.”); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (holding that a prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, but must instead seek federal habeas corpus relief). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s motion for reconsideration because Edwards failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s motion to amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 19-16207

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.