LYU v. John P. Yutan; Stephen Isago, Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-22No. No. 20-55362

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing Lyu's § 1983 civil rights action was affirmed.

Jae Jeong Lyu, a California state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his federal civil rights lawsuit against law enforcement officials arising from his arrests and convictions. The district court had dismissed his claims under the screening procedures for in forma pauperis cases. On appeal, Lyu challenged the dismissal and argued that certain legal principles no longer applied to his case.

The appellate court reviewed the dismissal independently and found no error. It upheld the district court's determination that two defendants possessed prosecutorial immunity, which shielded them from liability. The court also rejected Lyu's argument that the Heck doctrine—which restricts certain civil rights claims when they challenge the validity of underlying convictions—was outdated or should not apply. The court declined to address additional arguments that Lyu raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Scope and application of prosecutorial immunity
Whether Heck v. Humphrey remains valid law
Dismissal of in forma pauperis civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Procedural posture

Lyu appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his arrests and convictions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jae Jeong Lyu appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to his arrests and convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lyus claims against defendants Gravely and Hight because they are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the scope of prosecutorial immunity).

We reject as without merit Lyus contentions that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), is no longer good law and that the district court should have treated his operative complaint as a habeas petition.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.