Cаrl D. McQUILLION; Willie B. Thomas; Michael Milan; Robert L. Polete; Minh Nguyen; Lloyd Garcia; Frank Juan Rivera; Raymond Rogers; Keith E. Wiggins; Dennis E. Riney; Alfredo Hernandez Cruz; Jessie L. Davis; Roger Brown; Sebastian Llorente; Thomas Wells; Randall Cowans; Zachary Lilliard; Donald Ray Washington, # C-12677, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; Pete Wilson; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General; Dan Lungren; Robert Presley; Joe Sandoval; James W. Nielsen, Chairman; John W. Gillis; Ted Riсh; Lewis Chartrand, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-16037
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2003. Filed May 19, 2004.
369 F.3d 1091
Before CUDAHY, GOODWIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-02060-GGH.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Michael J. Williams, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for the defendants-appellees.
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge.
Carl McQuillion (“McQuillion“) and his co-plaintiffs (“co-plaintiffs“) appeal the dismissal of their civil rights complaint against thе Board of Prison Terms (the “Board“) and the Governor of California, inter alia, for allegedly administering California‘s parole statutes to achieve an unwritten, unconstitutional policy of denying parole to inmates convicted of certain offenses. We affirm.
I.
In 1979, following a 1973 conviction for murder, the Community Release Board, as the Board was named at the time, found McQuillion suitаble for parole. The Board moved up his parole date at six hearings over fifteen years. But in 1994, sitting en banc, the Board reversed the 1979 parole suitability determination.1 In 1996, before commencing the present action, McQuillion filed a complaint (“1996 complaint“) under
In September 1996, the district court dismissed the claim for damages, ruling that parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity.2 In March 1998, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because McQuillion had not stated a cognizable claim under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We affirmed in an unpublished opinion: “Because McQuillion‘s claim, which challenges the policies and procedures of the Board of Prison Terms as well as the constitutionality of various California statutes, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his continuing confinement, it is not cognizable under §
In May 1998, McQuillion filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Board‘s rescission of his parole date violated his due process rights. The district court denied the petition, but we reversed in September 2002, holding that “McQuillion is ... entitled to habeas relief on the grounds that his parole rescission violated due process.” McQuillion I, 306 F.3d at 912. After further litigation, McQuillion was released. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 253 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1132-33 (C.D.Cal.2003) (ordering release but staying judgment); McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003) (affirming judgment of release) (”McQuillion II“).
While McQuillion‘s hаbeas litigation was pending, he and co-plaintiffs, all of whom
In May 2001, the district court dismissed McQuillion‘s claims as barred by collatеral estoppel, dismissed co-plaintiffs’ claims for money damages under Heck and dismissed co-plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief as seeking redress that no federal court could provide. Alternatively, the court ruled that co-plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and, therefore, could not pursue declaratory or injunctive relief. The court found that co-plaintiffs’ damages claims need not be exhausted because no administrative process could provide such a remedy.
II.
We begin by considering sua sponte whether McQuillion‘s successful habeas petition and subsequent release render his § 1983 action moot. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir.2002). “A case becomes moot `when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties laсk a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.\‘” See Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 489 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th Cir.2001)). McQuillion‘s release extinguishes his legal interest in an injunction because it would have no effect on him. See Bernhardt, 279 F.3d at 871.
Similarly, although in some instances declaratory relief may exist after injunctive relief becomes moot, see, e.g., Super Tire Eng‘g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122, 94 S.Ct. 1694, 40 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974), McQuillion‘s claim for declaratory judgment also cannot proceed. A judicial pronouncement, as it would relate to McQuillion, would be an advisory opinion, which the Constitution prohibits. See
McQuillion‘s claims for damages are not moot, however. “If [plaintiff] is entitled to collect damages in the event that it succeeds on the merits, the case
III.
We first consider whether collateral estoppel is a defense. We review de novo the application of collateral estoppel. See United States v. Real Prop. Located at 22 Santa Barbarа Drive, 264 F.3d 860, 868 (9th Cir.2001).
McQuillion contends that, unlike his earlier complaint, his present complaint does not imply the invalidity of his sentence or seek damages to redress past injury. To the extent the issues are identical and collateral estoppel would otherwise apply, he argues that he has now complied with Heck by overturning the Board‘s rescission of his parole and his suit сan now proceed.
Where a federal court has decided the earlier case, federal law controls the collateral estoppel analysis. Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 923 (9th Cir.1996). Three factors must be considered before applying collateral estoppel: “`(1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the issue must have beеn actually litigated [by the party against whom preclusion is asserted] in the prior litigation; and (3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been a critical and necessary part of the judgment in the earlier action.\‘” Id. (quoting Town of N. Bonneville v. Callaway, 10 F.3d 1505, 1508 (9th Cir.1993)) (alteration in Callaway).
All three factors are present in McQuillion‘s claims for damages against members of the Board. The 1996 complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages from individual members of the Board for unconstitutionally rescinding McQuillion‘s parole date, and the present complaint seeks the same damages for the same conduct by some of the same defendants. The issue was fully and finally litigated when McQuillion‘s initial damages claim was dismissed due to absolute immunity, and he had the opportunity to appеal. Contrary to McQuillion‘s argument here, his earlier damages claim was thus not dismissed without prejudice on Heck grounds. It was dismissed because the defendants enjoyed absolute immunity. Therefore, the earlier dismissal of the damages claim was a final determination on a ground not altered by McQuillion‘s subsequent receipt of habeas relief. Finally, the district court‘s determination of thе issue was necessary to its judgment.
But collateral estoppel does not apply to the issue of whether McQuillion can seek damages against the remaining defendants. As noted, the dismissal of his initial damages claim settled the issue of whether absolute immunity shielded members of the Board from money damages. Because not all defendants in the present action аre members of the Board, and therefore not entitled to absolute immunity, the issue of whether McQuillion may pursue money damages against the remaining defendants is not foreclosed by the earlier ruling. Still, because we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (9th Cir.2003), we next consider whether Heck bars his claims.
All plaintiffs, including McQuillion, assert that the damages they seek are not compensation for past injury. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), the Supreme Court held that “when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” 411 U.S. at 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827. Preiser did not extend its holding to a claim for damages, saying that a plaintiff seeking damages is not attacking the fact or length of his confinement. Id. at 494, 93 S.Ct. 1827. In Heck, however, the Court squarely addressed the issue:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court‘s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus,
28 U.S.C. § 2254 . A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (footnote omitted).
Following Heck, the Court addressed whether a § 1983 claim could proceed where the plaintiff sought damages for being denied good-time credits without due process, as opposed to seeking damages for being denied the credits undeservedly. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). There, the Court explained that Heck can limit § 1983 claims seeking damages for using the wrong procedure, not only for reaching the wrong result. Id. at 646, 117 S.Ct. 1584. The Court concluded that a “claim for declaratory rеlief and money damages, based on allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the decisionmaker that necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed, is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584.
Here, plaintiffs state in their complaint that, in violation of
McQuillion, individually, argues that Heck has no application because he overturned the rescission of his parole while this appeal was pending. In Balisok, the Court made a point of addressing the district court‘s decision not to grant a motion to dismiss, but to stay the § 1983 action until the state remediеs had been exhausted. 520 U.S. at 649, 117 S.Ct. 1584. The Court stated that “§ 1983 contains no judicially imposed exhaustion requirement; absent some other bar to the suit, a claim either is cognizable under § 1983 and should immediately go forward, or is not cognizable and should be dismissed.” Id. (citation omitted). McQuillion‘s damages claims were not cognizable at the time of the district court‘s ruling, which came after our 2002 opinion granting habeas relief, and, therefore, should have been dismissed.
In short, McQuillion‘s claims for money damages against members of the Board are barred by collateral estoppel, and his claims against the remaining defendants are barred by Heck. The co-plaintiffs’ claims for money damages are also barred by Heck.
V.
Co-plaintiffs also seek prospective relief, arguing that it would afford them only the possibility of a constitutionally adequate parole hearing in the future, without implying the invalidity of their sentences. They explain that they must resort to prospective relief, because individual state habeas petitions cannot affect the Board‘s and Governor‘s overall administration of parole. Accordingly, they statе: “The issue for consideration by this Court is whether the federal courts can grant injunctive relief that will benefit more than just individual inmates, by compelling the Board and Governor to abide by the law, specifically, the mandate that in California Penal Code § 3041 that parole shall `normally\’ be granted.” Appellants’ Supp. Opening Brief at 47.
The Court in Balisok stated that “[o]rdinarily, a prayer for ... prospective relief will not `necessarily imply\’ the invalidity of a previous loss of good-time credits, and so may be brought under § 1983.” 520 U.S. at 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584. Citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), and O‘Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499, 502, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), the Court cautioned, however, that a plaintiff still must show standing and meet the requirements for injunctive relief. Id. To have standing, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant‘s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).
Here, co-plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from violating state law and the California Constitution. However, assuming that co-plaintiffs have a protected liberty interest in parole eligibility matters, the prospective relief they seek is unattainable in § 1983 proceedings, illustrating why their remedy lies in federal habeas proceedings. Bias on the part of the Governоr, the Board and the Attorney General cannot be redressed by an injunction ordering those state officials to comply with state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). The effect of a purportedly biased decision resulting in a constitutional violation could
Their remaining claims for prospective relief also cannot proceed. Section 1983 does not vest federal courts with the authority to enjoin the administration of, or to declare invalid, state laws on the grounds that they are incompatible with other state laws, much less to rule that state laws are contrary to the state legislature‘s intent. Nor can we put in place prophylactic rules of our own making where the underlying state laws are not themselves contrary to federal law. That is the job of the state courts and state legislatures.
We note that plaintiffs are incorrect in asserting that they have no other remedy available. In addition to federal habeas proceedings, through which McQuillion obtained his outright release, the California state courts provide a means of collaterally attacking an unfounded rescission or denial of parole by the Board or the Governor. See In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 658, 667, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174 (2002) (courts can review decisions of the Board and the Governor); In re Smith, 109 Cal.App.4th 489, 507, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 781 (2003) (“[T]he Governor‘s decision is not supported by `some evidence.\‘“); In re Capistran, 107 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1306, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 872 (2003) (affirming grant of habeas petition where Governor‘s decision not supported by “some evidence“).
VI.
Plaintiffs also appeal the denial of leave to amend the complaint. “Leave to amend should be granted unless the pleading `could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts,\’ and should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc)). The district court did not err in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. At the time of its ruling, McQuillion could not amend his complaint to avoid collateral estoppel, all plaintiffs could not state cognizable damages claims consistent with Heck, and co-plaintiffs could allege no facts entitling them to prospective relief.
VII.
McQuillion‘s claims for declaratory and injunctivе relief are dismissed as moot, and collateral estoppel bars his claim for damages against members of the Board. Heck bars all plaintiffs’ claims for damages, and co-plaintiffs do not have standing to seek prospective relief in this case.
AFFIRMED.
GOODWIN
CIRCUIT JUDGE