Case Name: Josef MOSCHREF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirk STRATTON, Chief of Police; Martin Corona, Officer; Town of Colma, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-14
Citations: 697 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 16-15306
Parties: Josef MOSCHREF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirk STRATTON, Chief of Police; Martin Corona, Officer; Town of Colma, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILER, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 532–534

Head Matter:
Josef MOSCHREF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirk STRATTON, Chief of Police; Martin Corona, Officer; Town of Colma, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15306
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 12, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed September 14, 2017
Russell Alan Robinson, Counsel, Law Office of Russell A. Robinson, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Danielle Kono Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Gregg Anthony Thornton, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SILER, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Josef Moschref appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Town of Colma, Chief of Police Kirk Stratton, and Officer Martin Corona. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. We affirm.
The district court did not err in concluding that Moschrefs First Amendment claims against Appellees, including his claim for retaliation, were barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). To succeed in a § 1983 action, Moschref would have to show that Officer Corona's statements—including the statement that Moschref was the driver of the car during the August 7, 2012, incident leading to his arrest—were false, which would necessarily, and impermissibly, imply the invalidity of Moschref's DUI conviction. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364).
The district court also properly dismissed Moschrefs claim for malicious prosecution. Moschref did not allege that the state court proceedings "terminated in such a manner as to indicate his innocence." Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 484-85, 114 S.Ct. 2364). The felony charges based on his post-arrest conduct were simply dismissed as part of a negotiated plea deal, which culminated in Moschrefs DUI conviction.
Finally, the district court correctly dismissed Moschrefs claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Because Moschref has not stated any underlying constitutional violations, his Monell claims necessarily fail.
Costs are awarded to the Appellees.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.