Case ID: f-appx_371/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul A. WESBECHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen D. LANDAKER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17051.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 25, 2010.
    Paul Anthony Wesbecher, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    David J. Van Dam, Esquire, Leo Herman Schuering, Jr., Schuering Zimmerman Scully Tweedy & Doyle, LLP, Bruce A. Kilday, Cori Rae Samo, Esquire, Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff, A Law Partnership, Sacramento, CA, Allison Goldsmith, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul A. Wesbecher appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wesbecher’s excessive force claim because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions, and Wesbecher offered no evidence that his convictions have been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Defendant Landaker’s motion to supplement the record and motion for leave to file a late brief are granted.

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