Douglas Arledge v. Ada County ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    DOUGLAS RAY ARLEDGE,                            No.    17-35113
    
                    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00590-EJL
    
     v.
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
    ADA COUNTY; et al.,
    
                    Defendants-Appellees.
    
                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                                 for the District of Idaho
                        Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
    
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
          Former Idaho state prisoner Douglas Ray Arledge appeals pro se from the
    
    district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
    
    constitutional claims arising out of state court criminal proceedings. We have
    
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. Garcetti,
    
    
          *
                 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).
    
    486 F.3d 572
    , 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994)); Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
    
    (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
    
          The district court properly dismissed Arledge’s action as Heck-barred
    
    because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of
    
    his sentence, and Arledge failed to show that his sentence has been invalidated.
    
    See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (explaining 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”).
    
          AFFIRMED.
    
    
    
    
                                              2                                    17-35113