Case Name: Refugio Saldana CAMACHO, Sr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARICOPA, County of, Sued in its individual & official capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 210 F. App'x 748
Docket Number: No. 05-17392
Parties: Refugio Saldana CAMACHO, Sr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. MARICOPA, County of, Sued in its individual & official capacity; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 748–749

Head Matter:
Refugio Saldana CAMACHO, Sr., Plaintiff — Appellant, v. MARICOPA, County of, Sued in its individual & official capacity; et al., Defendants — Appellees.
No. 05-17392.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 12, 2006.
Refugio Saldana Camacho, Sr., Watonga, OK, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01123-ROS.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Refugio Saldana Camacho, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his civil rights in the course of his criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Camacho's action under Heck v. Hum phrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment in Camacho's favor on these claims would necessarily impugn the validity of his guilty plea conviction, and Camacho failed to allege that his 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).
The remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.