NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAE JEONG LYU, No. 20-55362

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05533-JVS-FFM v.

MEMORANDUM* ROBERT HIGHT, Deputy of District Attorney, individual and official capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN P. YUTAN; STEPHEN ISAGO,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

*

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).

California state prisoner Jae Jeong Lyu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to his arrests and convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 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 Lyu’s claims against defendants Gravely and Hight because they are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the scope of prosecutorial immunity).

We reject as without merit Lyu’s contentions that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), is no longer good law and that the district court should have treated his operative complaint as a habeas petition.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-55362