Timothy Bludworth v. City of Stockton , 586 F. App'x 387 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY LEE BLUDWORTH, No. 14-15845
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02137-TLN-
CKD
v.
CITY OF STOCKTON; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Lee Bludworth appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to his
criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bludworth’s action as Heck-barred
because success on Bludworth’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that,
“in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a 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”).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15845