N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OB ER T SANC HEZ LOPEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF PHOENIX; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17165 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02511-GM SLOA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 21, 2015 * * B e fore : REINHAR

DT, LEAVY, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Ariz ona sta te prisone r R o be rt Sanc he zLope za ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing c onstitutiona l viola tions in c onne c tion with his crim ina l tria l an d c onvic tion. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dismi ssa l unde r 28 

# FIL ED SEP 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1915A. Hamilton v . Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011). W e

a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Lope z ’ s a c tion a s ba rre d by He c k

v . Humphre y , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Suc c e ss on them e rits of his c l a im s would ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva lidity

of his c onvic tion or se nte nc e , a nd Lope zfa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t e ithe r ha s be e n inva lida

t e d. Se eW

ilk inson v . Dotson , 544 U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005) (a prisone r’ s § 1983 a c t ion is ba rre d if suc c e ss

“ would ne c e ssa

rily de m onstra

te the inva lidity

of c onfine m e nt or its dura tion[,] ” unle ss “ the c onvic tion or se nte nc e ha s a lre a dy be e n inva lida t e d” (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se ealso He c k, 512 U.S. at 479, 490 (§ 1983 suit a lle ging tha

t prose c utors de stroy e d e x c ulpa tory e vide n c e wa s ba

rre d); Gue rre ro v . Gate

s , 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th C ir. 2003) ( He c k ba rre d c la im

of c onspira c y

to bring fa lse c ha

rge s); C abre ra v . C

ity of Huntington Park

, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th C ir. 1998) (pe r c uriam) ( He c k ba rre d fa l se arre s t a

nd fa lse im prisonm e nt c la im s until c onvic tion wa s inva lida te d), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

W allac ev . K

a to , 549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007); Trimble v . C ity of Santa Rosa , 49 F.3d 583, 584-85 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ) (Sixth Am e ndm e nt c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l is ba

rre d by He c k

). W e c onstrue the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l a s without pre judic e . Se e Trimble , 49 F.3d a t 585. 1 3 - 1 7 1 6 5 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Lope z ’ s re que st for a sta y . Lope z ’ s c la im

for fa lse arre st wa s tim e -barre d. Se e W a l lac e , 549 U.S. a

t 393-94 (a distric t c ourt ha s the powe r to sta y a c ivil a c tion whilere late d c rim ina l c ha rge s a re pe nding); Yong v . I.N

.S. , 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th C ir. 2000) (sta nda rd of re v ie w); se ealso Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 12-542 (two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions for pe rsona l injury

a c t ions); W

allac e , 549 U.S. a

t 387-90, 397 (for § 1983 c la im s, fe de ra l c o urts a

pply the forum

sta te ’ s pe rsona l injury

sta tute of lim ita

tions, a nd the sta tute of lim ita

tions on a fa lse arre st or fa l se im

prisonm e nt c la i m

“ be gins to run a

t the t im e the c la im a

nt be c om e s de ta ine d pursua nt to le g a l proc e ss” ). W e re je c t Lope z ’ s a

rgum e nts c onc e rning tolling. B e c a use we a ffirm

the dismissa l a s ba

rre d by He c k

, we do not re a c h the m e rits of Lope z ’ s c la i m s. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in theope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 1 6 5 3