Rodney Graves-Bey v. City and County of Sf , 669 F. App'x 373 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY ALEXANDER GRAVES-BEY, No. 15-17271
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04638-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rodney Alexander Graves-Bey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations arising from his arrest, charge, conviction, and sentencing.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892
(9th Cir. 2011), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Cigna
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412, 418 (9th Cir. 1998).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Graves-Bey’s claims for damages as
Heck-barred because success on these claims would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence and Graves-Bey failed to allege facts
demonstrating that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (the district court must dismiss a damages
action, which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction,
absent a showing that the conviction has been overturned).
The district court properly dismissed Graves-Bey’s claims for injunctive
relief because Graves-Bey failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he currently
faces an immediate threat of irreparable injury. See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d
1118, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]njunctive relief is appropriate only when
irreparable injury is threatened . . . a plaintiff must demonstrate a real or immediate
threat that they will be wronged again” (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Dismissal of Graves-Bey’s request for a criminal investigation and
2 15-17271
prosecution of defendants was proper because Graves-Bey lacks standing to
compel the investigation or prosecution of another person. See Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”).
We do not consider Graves-Bey’s claims that defendants violated
international law because Graves-Bey did not properly raise these claims before
the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17271