NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD EVERETT,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. M. BLACK, ISU Officer,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 16619
D.C. No. 1:16

- cv - 01285

- AWI

- MJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 1 2 , 2018 **
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Ronald Everet t appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 acti on alleging due process violations in connection with disciplinary proceedings

. We have juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 68 0 F.3d 1113, 1118

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precede nt 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). 

# FILED

SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16619

(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A) ; Osborne v. Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. , 423 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994))

. We may affirm on any
g round supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm

. T o the extent that success on Everett’s due process claim s stemming from his 2008 disciplinary hearing would necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction that resulted in the loss of good

- time credits, Everett’s claims are barred by Heck , because Everett failed to allege facts demonstrating that his disciplinary sentence has been invalidated. See Hec k , 512 U.S. at 486

- 87 ( barring § 1983 claims which, if successful, “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of an inmate’s conviction or sentence , unless inmate demonstrates that
the conviction or sentence has been invalidated ); see also Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 645

- 48 (1997) (challenge to loss of good

- time credits not cognizable under § 1983)

. We treat the dismissal of the se claims as a dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa , 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) ( Heck dismissals are without prejudice )

. To the extent that success on Everett’s due process claims would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction , d ismissal was pr oper because Everett failed to allege facts sufficient to show a due process violation3 17

- 16619

arising from his placement in administrative segregation

. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 483

- 84 (1995) (libe rty interest arises only when restraint “imposes atypic al and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); Toussaint v. McCarthy , 801 F.2d 1080, 1100

- 01 (9th Cir. 1986) ( describing due process notice requirements for inmate placement in administrative segregation), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin , 515 U.S. 472. We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts no t presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED
.