James A. Mcdaniels, Petitioner-appellant, v. Los Angeles County, Respondent-appellee, 145 F.3d 1339 (9th Cir. 1998)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 145 F.3d 1339 (9th Cir. 1998) Submitted June 8, 1998**.Decided June 12, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding.

Before REINHARDT, THOMPSON, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

James A. McDaniels, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages alleging violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (i), see Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), and we vacate and remand.

Because McDaniels' challenge to the procedures by which he was committed to state prison rather than to the Youth Authority would necessarily implicate the validity of his sentence, the district court correctly determined that McDaniels' claim was not cognizable under § 1983. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589, 137 L. Ed. 2d 906 (1997). The district court, however, was required to dismiss the complaint without prejudice because McDaniels may be able to reassert his § 1983 claim if he ever succeeds in invalidating his sentence. See Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of dismissal with prejudice and remand to the district court for entry of a judgment of dismissal without prejudice. See id.

McDaniels' motion to dismiss his appeal without prejudice is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

 **

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.