Case ID: f-appx_450/html/0684-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Wilson STEWART, Jr., AKA Robert Stewart, AKA Robert W. Stewart, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Joseph WELTY, Asst. U.S. Attorney; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-16576.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2011.
    Robert Wilson Stewart, Jr., Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Robert Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 888, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that his civil rights were violated during his criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s action because his allegations against the United States regarding his criminal proceedings necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Stewart has not shown that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 complaint in which “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996) (applying Heck to actions brought against federal actors). We construe the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.