Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark Douglas TICKNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HINSBURG, Badge# 672; Reed, Badge# 874, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17644.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    Mark Douglas Ticknor, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    William Hylen, Robert Bruce Washburn, Esquire, Scottsdale City Attorney’s Office, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Mark Douglas Ticknor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights in the course of his arrest and criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment in Tiek-nor’s favor on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction for resisting arrest, and Ticknor failed to allege that this conviction has been invalidated. See id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364.

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.