Correa v. Shaffer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR CORREA, No. 24-1412 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00739-TLN-KJN Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JENNIFER SHAFFER, Executive Director of Board of Prison Hearings; CHRISTINE NIJJER, Deputy Commissioner at B.P.H. Sacramento; JOE SULLIVAN, Deputy Commissioner; RICHARD KENDALL, Forensic Psychologist; JEANNETTE SANDERS, Senior Psychologist, Supervisor; GENEDEL AMBER MACASINAG, Transcriber, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2025** Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, 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 Victor Correa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of his parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Correa’s action because Correa failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (holding that federal courts cannot substantively review parole decisions; rather, due process is satisfied in the parole context when a prisoner is provided with an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred . . . if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”); United States v. Juv. Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that where no protected class is implicated, an equal protection claim requires a showing that the government action was not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose); Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732, 741 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring a showing of actual or apparent prejudgment to overcome the presumption of a decisionmaker’s honesty and integrity). 2 24-1412 The motion (Docket Entry No. 19) for sanctions is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 24-1412