Gregory McClellan v. David Mountain , 399 F. App'x 218 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 06 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GREGORY McCLELLAN,                               No. 09-15596
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00256-LJO-GSA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    DAVID MOUNTAIN; P. HEARD,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 13, 2010 **
    Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Gregory McClellan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging claims concerning parole
    conditions and revocation of parole. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 
    488 F.3d 1202
    , 1205 (9th Cir. 2007).
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside
    Healthcare Sys. LP, 
    534 F.3d 1116
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part,
    vacate in part, and remand.
    We affirm the dismissal of McClellan’s claims challenging parole
    conditions. See Hatton v. Bonner, 
    356 F.3d 955
    , 961-67 (9th Cir. 2004) (rejecting
    ex post facto challenge); Neal v. Shimoda, 
    131 F.3d 818
    , 826-27 (9th Cir. 1997)
    (same); see also United States v. Bee, 
    162 F.3d 1232
    , 1234-35 (9th Cir. 1998)
    (rejecting constitutional challenge to condition of supervised release).
    However, we vacate the dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    (1994), of McClellan’s claim challenging parole revocation. The district court did
    not expressly consider the Heck exception set forth in Nonnette v. Small, 
    316 F.3d 872
     (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings
    on this claim.
    McClellan shall bear his own costs on appeal.
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
    2                                  09-15596