
    Robert ERLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Connie BISBEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16981.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 3, 2015.
    Robert Erler, Carson City, NV, pro se.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWTTZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Robert Erler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations in connection with his parole hearings. 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) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Erler’s action under Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), because it concluded that Erler’s claims sound in habeas and challenge the validity of his confinement. However, because Er-ler sought a new parole hearing and not immediate or speedier release, success in this action would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of Erler’s continued confinement or its duration. See id. at 81-82, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (allowing procedural challenges to parole hearings because the injunctive and declaratory relief that plaintiffs sought under § 1983 “would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release”); see also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (“Ordinarily, a prayer for ... prospective relief [to engage in a particular procedure] will not ‘necessarily imply’ the invalidity of a previous [decision], and so may properly be brought under § 1983.”). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Erler’s action. We express no opinion on the merits of Erler’s claims or his entitlement to the relief sought.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Erler’s contentions regarding the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- ’ edby 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     