RICHARD PHILLIPS V. KEVIN CHAPPELL, No. 18-16790 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD LOUIS ARNOLD PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16790 D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00875-EJD v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, San Quentin State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Richard Louis Arnold Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims in connection with his confinement in state prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s * 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). dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s claim premised on his allegedly illegal confinement in state prison as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on this claim would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the duration of his confinement. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (“[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2

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.