Samuel v. California
Samuel v. California
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
David Tyrone Samuel, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s
The district court properly dismissed Samuel’s action because it challenged the acceptance of his guilty plea, and a favorable judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Samuel may not bring such an action unless and until his conviction is reversed through a direct appeal or writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
The district court properly denied Samuel’s request for a discovery scheduling conference as moot.
The district court properly dismissed the action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Ashel-man v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.