Gregory Adamson v. Los Angeles County

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY K. ADAMSON, No. 08-55712
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-04384-ODW-
AGR
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Gregory K. Adamson, a former inmate in the Los Angeles County Jail,
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
*
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). Accordingly, we deny
Adamson’s motion for oral argument.
JS/Research
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Huftile v.
Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm in part, vacate in
part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Claims 1-4 and 9-10 of the Second
Amended Complaint because a judgment in Adamson’s favor would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction, and he did not allege that his conviction has
been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Guerrero
v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704-05 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that claims implying
the invalidity of plaintiff’s convictions were barred by Heck even though plaintiff
was no longer in custody). However, we vacate the judgment to the extent it
dismissed these claims with prejudice, and remand for dismissal without prejudice.
See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
(stating that dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).
The district court properly dismissed Adamson’s claims concerning the chest
x-ray in Claims 5 and 7. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993)
(explaining that, to meet the objective prong of the deliberate indifference test, an
inmate must show that the risk he complains of is “so grave that it violates
contemporary standards of decency”).
JS/Research 2 08-55712
We do not consider issues not argued on appeal. See Indep. Towers of
Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (deeming abandoned
issues not argued on appeal).
Adamson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Adamson shall bear his own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
JS/Research 3 08-55712