Gonzales v. Mayes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID LOPEZ GONZALES, No. 24-2281 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00002-ROS-- Plaintiff - Appellant, DMF v. KRIS MAYES, named Kristin K. Mayes, MEMORANDUM* Arizona Attorney General; RACHEL MITCHELL, Maricopa County Attorney; AMANDA M. PARKER, Deputy County Attorney; ERIC KNOBLOCH, Assistant Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 12, 2025** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner David Lopez Gonzales appeals pro se from the district * 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). court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims in connection with his state court criminal case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gonzales’s action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because success on Gonzales’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Gonzales has not demonstrated that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486- 87 (holding that if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 536 (2011) (claims relying on an alleged Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), violation are “outside the province of § 1983” under Heck); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (holding that Heck applies regardless of the type of relief sought). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Gonzales’s motion (Docket Entry No. 14) for amicus briefing is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 24-2281