Case Name: Jose W. YEPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HAAG, Asst. U.S. Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 443 F. App'x 270
Docket Number: No. 10-55492
Parties: Jose W. YEPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HAAG, Asst. U.S. Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
Jose W. YEPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HAAG, Asst. U.S. Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-55492.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 15, 2011.
Jose W. Yepez, Butner, NC, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Federal prisoner Jose W. Yepez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that a police detective and a prosecutor engaged in misconduct that resulted in Yepez's conviction and sentence to life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Yepez's complaint because a judgment in favor of Yepez would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Yepez has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been previously invalidated. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996) (order).
We construe the judgment to be without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
Yepez's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.