-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREEM MUHAMMAD, No. 14-17487 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01199-JLT v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 14, 2016*** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Kareem Muhammad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging excessive force, unlawful arrest, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and related state law claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst,
351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that Muhammad’s action was barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477(1994), because a judgment in Muhammad’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). See Heck,
512 U.S. at487 (§ 1983 action that necessarily implies the invalidity of plaintiff’s conviction must be dismissed unless the conviction has been invalidated); Smith v. City of Hemet,
394 F.3d 689, 699 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A] jury’s verdict necessarily determines the lawfulness of the officers’ actions throughout the whole course of the defendant’s conduct, and any action alleging the use of excessive force would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)); Yount v. City of Sacramento,
183 P.3d 471, 484 (Cal. 2008) (California applies Heck principles to state law claims). We construe the district court’s summary judgment as dismissing the action without prejudice. See Belanus v. Clark,
796 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice). 2 We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 14-17487
Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 982
Filed Date: 12/22/2016
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023