Walter Langston v. Claudia Finn

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER SHANE LANGSTON, No. 11-15669
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02196-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CLAUDIA FINN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted June 26, 2012 ***
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Walter Shane Langston, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Langston consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
To the extent that Langston’s amended complaint contests the deprivation of
time credits, the district court properly dismissed those claims as Heck-barred. See
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time
credits not cognizable under § 1983); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994) (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of
confinement are barred).
To the extent that Langston’s amended complaint otherwise alleges a due
process violation, the district court properly dismissed those claims because
Langston failed to allege facts sufficient to show the deprivation of a protected
liberty or property interest. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-71
(1972) (threshold requirement to a due process claim is the showing of a
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest).
Langston’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Langston’s request to file a motion for default, received on May 1, 2012, is
deemed filed and is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15669