Terry James Tucker, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Arizona Department of Corrections; Samuel A. Lewis; J.c.keeney; Richard Godbehere, Defendants-appellees, 141 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 1998)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 141 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 1998) Submitted Mar. 10, 1998**.Decided Mar. 17, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roger G. Strand, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FLETCHER, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

Terry James Tucker, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil-rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss appeals from prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis which are frivolous. See Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Tucker contends that defendants held him without legal authority because they did not have a properly certified copy of the judgment on his sentence and conviction. Because Tucker failed to allege that the sentence and conviction underlying his confinement has been invalidated, Tucker may not pursue this claim in an action for damages or injunctive relief. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). The dismissal of Tucker's action and appeal is without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

We reject Tucker's allegation of judicial bias because it is based solely on prior judicial rulings. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994).

DISMISSED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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.