Steven Knox v. State of Oregon ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 25 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEVEN KNOX,                                     No. 08-35527
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:08-CV-00231-HA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    STATE OF OREGON; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 10, 2011 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Steven Knox, a former Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s order dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action challenging the life sentence
    imposed on Knox for his first-degree felony murder conviction and the decision,
    *
    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).
    08-35527
    made after Knox had served twenty years in prison, to defer his parole release date
    for two more years. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    novo a district court’s order of dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2), Barren v.
    Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Knox’s challenge to his original life
    sentence and the decision to defer his parole date as barred under Heck v.
    Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87 (1994). See 
    id.
     (section 1983 action barred if it
    challenges conduct that is also the basis of a criminal conviction or sentence that
    has not been otherwise invalidated or expunged via writ of habeas corpus, direct
    appeal, or executive order).
    The district court acted within its discretion by denying leave to amend
    because amendment would have been futile. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 
    603 F.3d 676
    , 680 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court further acted within its discretion
    by denying Knox’s motion for reconsideration. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 
    362 F.3d 1254
    , 1259-61 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Knox’s motion for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      08-35527
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-35527

Judges: Beezer, Tallman, Callahan

Filed Date: 1/25/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024