Case Name: John A. THYMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Attorney General, individually and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-01
Citations: 692 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 15-16050
Parties: John A. THYMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Attorney General, individually and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
John A. THYMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Attorney General, individually and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16050
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed June 1, 2017
John A. Thymes, Pro Se
Jillian O’Brien, Jay Russell, AGCA—Of-fice of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees Edmund G. Brown, Kamala D. Harris, Chung Mar, Daniel Chi-Sum Chang, Dane R. Gillette, Pamela Hamanaka, Laura Jane Hartquist, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Tim J, Harris, Attorney, Charlston, Re-vich & Wollitz LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees David M. Thompson, Jonathan B. Steiner, Elizabeth A. Courtenay, Murray A. Rosenberg
Amber A. Logan, Attorney, Nelson & Fulton, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees County of Los Angeles, Los An-geles Sheriffs Department, Office of the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Kimberly M. Drake, Litigation Counsel, Gabriel J. McWhirter, Jarvis Fay Doporto & Gibson, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees State of California Superi- or Court in the County of Los Angeles, Steven R. Van Sicklen, Curtis B. Rappe, Ruffo Espinosa, Steven Cooley
William Little, Pro Se
Michael A.S. Newman, Esquire, Counsel, Barger & Wolen LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Royal F. Oakes, Esquire, Senior Litigating Attorney, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Brian Adair Sutherland, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alicia A. Baiar-do, Attorney, McGuireWoods LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Gerald L, Hassell
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John A. Thymes appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law violations brought in connection with a property Thymes claims to own and his prior criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thymes' action because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his prior criminal conviction, and thus his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (irrespective of the relief sought, Heck bars § 1983 claims which would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction has been invalidated).
We reject as unsupported by the record Thymes' contention that the district court violated his right to due process or erred regarding the default judgments Thymes requested.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Thymes' pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 51, 52, 53) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.